Zone of Truth Discussion- OP spell??? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Cybren

2016-07-21, 08:23 PM

In another thread, wunderkid contested that Zone of Truth is an example of how casters trivialize normal encounters. While some people agreed with the general sentiment in a way, they objected to that specific example of a spell (myself obviously included). I excerpted some of the posts (but not all) on the subject from the other thread.

No it works in almost any and every situation that someone has something to hide. My situation isn't contrived. Not in the slightest. In fact your situations there are the contrived one xD

If they don't have anything to hide then they will have no issue standing there and answering and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt with no error they are innocent in the privacy of a room with just the cleric if need be. If they do have something to hide they will refuse. If they refuse it's still an omission of guilt and you can take further steps if necessary to prove their guilt. (What you're basically saying is in real world terms a criminal decides that they don't want to give their fingerprints to see if they match the ones on the gun for 'ideological' reasons or because there are people around or because they decide they don't want to and therefore doesn't have to or they can just walk out of the police station because keeping them there is a 'contrived' situation.

In this world zone of truth determines truth. It's a low level spell with no costly components. And is very very plausible to see it in use by law enforcement frequently. You can bet your ass if it existed in the real world it would be used in every single court case.)

So in fact publicly or semi publicly it would work even better! If they refuse or move out its basically telling the public they are lying to them when they could easily prove 100% they are innocent.

So even without them actually standing there and answering the questions it determines a level of guilt.

You are basically pointing out every single edge case that exists and calling it the norm. And calling common situations contrived.

most cases where you would use zone of truth will be situations where they have information you need to know and you have them there captured or willingly and need to get information from them.

On top of the fact EVERY situation you gave beats Mundane questioning. Zone of Truth even without them submitting to it proves more than if you didn't have the spell at all.

Your contrived scenario only functions in situations where the person is already completely at the mercy of the party. It would not work in any public or semi public setting, on people that you are socially prohibited from attacking, people that have an ideological or other reason to just say nothing no matter your threats, situations where your question can't easily be formed into yes/no questions, situations where you can't control that the person remains in the same spot...

There is a charisma save.

However you know if they pass or fail it and they retake that save every single turn.

So the save is pretty mute really. It lasts for 10 minutes. So that's about 100 saves they have to make. Which of course you know they have made. And it's a second level spell so it's very likely mid level casters could throw out a few of them.

And @rickallison I fully appreciate and understand what you're saying but this isn't a question of allignment or scenario. Another perfectly viable scenario is the king has a bard. Now instead of there being a trial to determine guilt he simply casts zone of truth. If the potential criminal refuses to answer it's an omission of guilt. Because why wouldn't you? If he refuses to answer he is guilty. If he isn't guilty he can answer. Cuts out all the mystery.

And this is just a second level spell. There are many more that work for different situations to trivialise them.

As I said, this is an example of information that changes the scenario that you failed to supply before. Based on the information that was provided (a rogue with excessively high Bluff, which would lend itself to covering his tracks), the leap to a vigilante torture and possible murder seemed incredibly CE because there was a lack of evidence that this person was actually a villain. If the party did have certain knowledge he was part of the oppressive party, it becomes more of a CN act (still chaotic, as you are blatantly going against all laws, even ones that are more general and not part of an evil regime, but being forced to extract information from a known villain falls into more gray territory than the blatant evil of torturing a mere suspect for information).

Basically by omitting the information, you created a totally different scenario. Now, anyone who hasn't witnessed your evidence has to take your word against his, so you would likely lose any and all support of other vigilantes or other citizens who believe his lies, but you would not be judged as harshly on a universal scale because you have at least established that you have grounds to believe in his guilt.

There is just so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start.

You are trying to get the truth from the guy to work out how to beat the evil dictator. This is much closer to interrogating a terror suspect to find out the other members and leader of the cell, where they operate and how to take them down without incurring innocent casualties or repercussions.

He was high up in the command structure of the evil prince. Had recently tried to kills us twice and we captured him which is why he was being questioned.

We also didn't want to torture him. But if he refused to tell us the truth then for the greater good we would do what needed to be done. We were all neutral. And him leaving would have led to us dying. The Prince being tipped off or innocents dying. Yes we could have found a non lethal alternative but not a feasible one.

When such a thing exists as a way to generate absolute proof bob should have no issue with standing in a zone of truth and defending himself.

If he has nothing to hide and was not up to no good then a few seconds telling the truth shouldn't be a problem.

Torture/killing doesn't even come into the equation unless they refuse to answer the question that would determine his guilt. At which point them refusing is a damn good indication they are a wrong'un and therefore killing them is going to be a good idea in more cases than not.

The very existence of a way to prove with absolute certainty if someone is lying changes the meta. If court rooms could have that then it would make legal proceedings so much more effective (and please nobody cite polygraph tests those things are not accurate and can be tricked a zone of truth is infallible. They have to tell the truth. It can be a version of the truth. But a yes/no question gets around that easily)

Cybren

2016-07-21, 08:26 PM

"You are basically pointing out every single edge case that exists and calling it the norm. And calling common situations contrived."

Those aren't edge cases, they're weaknesses of the spell. It's a cool spell. It can be a good spell. It is not an overpowered spell, and it does not "trivialize intrigue". Because its use cases are narrow enough and its exceptions are wide enough that it can't be used as a cudgel for all social interaction. If you don't see that your specific group of circumstances aren't universal you are either playing a specific campaign type that diverges from the norm, or you are being intentionally dishonest

JNAProductions

2016-07-21, 08:59 PM

What if someone is good at telling "truths"?

"Did you murder the prince?"

"I didn't harm a hair on his head!"

In actuality, he stabbed the prince to death. But hey, his hair was totally fine!

Or what if magic is rare? Or people are scared of magic?

What if someone has a secret unrelated to the case at hand, and that makes them not want to go into it? (For instance, a farmer is cheating on his wife. Probably doesn't know how the spell works either-thinks it'll make him reveal all secrets, not just tell the truth.)

krugaan

2016-07-21, 09:00 PM

seems a fairly reasonable assessment to me.

To say nothing of spells like Clairvoyance, Invisibility, Detect Magic (!), Detect Thoughts, and the like.

And those are just the low level ones...

Mellack

2016-07-21, 09:04 PM

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-07-21, 09:06 PM

It definitely works better when the cleric in question has the social capital to get people to go into the circle when they think they're innocent... or if you have a group of murderhobos who are willing to capture and torture people for information. So if you're lawfully tasked with investigating a crime, or if you're a bunch of Punishers, it works like a charm. It's that middle ground where the locals don't trust you and you have no formal power, but you have the misfortune of respecting basic human(oid) dignity, where you might not be able to get people to step into your weird magic circle.

Oddly enough, my current group's most common use of ZoT is to get local clergy to verify that the party isn't lying. It's a very versatile spell. Once you get Dominate Person, that becomes the go-to way to get all the information you need... if you're willing to go down that road.

Specter

2016-07-21, 09:08 PM

Well, my liar of a bard doesn't sweat it because he has a Ring of Mind Shielding, and if you plan on lying and the DM lets you pick an item you would be insane not to take it.

Anyhoo...

For it to replace social interaction, you would need a guy willing to be interrogated by you, at your convenience, with people ready to believe you, the right questions to ask and no magic like Glibness on him. I'm sure the DM can prepare for that.

Cybren

2016-07-21, 09:11 PM

seems a fairly reasonable assessment to me.

To say nothing of spells like Clairvoyance, Invisibility, Detect Magic (!), Detect Thoughts, and the like.

And those are just the low level ones...

This isn't about general caster over-abundance of utility, it's about specifically the impact of Zone of Truth.

krugaan

2016-07-21, 09:19 PM

This isn't about general caster over-abundance of utility, it's about specifically the impact of Zone of Truth.

Alright, so consider the reverse: how would you replicate the effect of zone of truth in a mundane manner?

Mellack

2016-07-21, 09:19 PM

There are a lot of other issues involved as well in casting ZoT. How common is magic in the world, do others even know what that is? Why should people trust you to cast something on them? RAW there is no check to learn what spell someone is casting. Maybe you are casting a spell to attack. Or cast Domination to make them confess to a crime they didn't commit. You are asking them to put a huge amount of trust in you.

Cybren

2016-07-21, 09:25 PM

Alright, so consider the reverse: how would you replicate the effect of zone of truth in a mundane manner?

Insight checks, bribes, threats, negotiation? Follow them and see what they do? In the scenario I quoted in the OP the person in the zone of truth is completely at the parties mercy. At that point they are spending a second level spell slot for what is the situations equivalent of bumpers in bowling: you've lowered your floor but haven't raised your ceiling. A zone of truth isn't an i-win button over an encounter, it gives a particular avenue to overcome a particular obstacle, but it's neither fool-proof nor always applicable.

MaxWilson

2016-07-21, 10:37 PM

What if someone is good at telling "truths"?

"Did you murder the prince?"

"I didn't harm a hair on his head!"

In actuality, he stabbed the prince to death. But hey, his hair was totally fine!

ObBrust:

Imperial Adjudicator: "Did you kill Tagichatn?"
Vlad: "In my opinion, I believe he killed himself."

Vlad thinks to himself: "...by talking to me that way."

Also, by the way: Minor Illusion is a useful counter to Zone of Truth. Cast it surreptitiously, then cover your mouth with your hands and create the illusion of your voice speaking. The Zone of Truth caster [I]knows you can't lie, so you must have just told the truth, right?

Also, Modify Memory. Harry Dresden did that to Mab... didn't work, though.

RickAllison

2016-07-21, 10:41 PM

ObBrust:

Imperial Adjudicator: "Did you kill Tagichatn?"
Vlad: "In my opinion, I believe he killed himself."

Vlad thinks to himself: "...by talking to me that way."

Also, by the way: Minor Illusion is a useful counter to Zone of Truth. Cast it surreptitiously, then cover your mouth with your hands and create the illusion of your voice speaking. The Zone of Truth caster [I]knows you can't lie, so you must have just told the truth, right?

Also, Modify Memory. Harry Dresden did that to Mab... didn't work, though.

Which is why the courts should have a second person running Detect Thoughts!

Temperjoke

2016-07-21, 10:48 PM

What is the truth, anyways? I mean, if the person believes a lie is the truth, then they can say it with no problem. If you're not specific enough, then an accomplished liar would be able to find wiggle room, as indicated by other posters. I think this is another case where the spell is as powerful as the DM allows it to be.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-07-21, 11:10 PM

ObBrust:

Imperial Adjudicator: "Did you kill Tagichatn?"
Vlad: "In my opinion, I believe he killed himself."

Vlad thinks to himself: "...by talking to me that way."

Also, by the way: Minor Illusion is a useful counter to Zone of Truth. Cast it surreptitiously, then cover your mouth with your hands and create the illusion of your voice speaking. The Zone of Truth caster [I]knows you can't lie, so you must have just told the truth, right?

Also, Modify Memory. Harry Dresden did that to Mab... didn't work, though.Requiring simple answers to questions and having someone there to notice/detect/counter/dispel magical effects is definitely an important part of using the spell properly.

famousringo

2016-07-21, 11:16 PM

That's it, my next character will be a charlatan who insists he's a priest.

I'm certain that man is lying... Well he failed his charisma save! What do you mean you won't arrest him?!

If an actual cleric casts Zone of Truth on me, shouldn't be too hard to convince the guard that he's lying... My Detect Magic spell reveals nothing at all. Take him away, constable.

Veldrenor

2016-07-21, 11:24 PM

The power of Zone of Truth is entirely dependent on the world, community, DM, the party's relation to the people around them, and a fair number of other factors. If it's just your party and the target, alone and contained, and your party is morally flexible, then it's really powerful. The moment you start introducing bystanders it becomes volatile. How do the bystanders know the spell does what you say it does? If the target makes the charisma save and you tell everyone that, how do the bystanders know you're telling the truth? If the caster is standing in the ZoT so she can't lie about the target succeeding at the save, how do the bystanders know that the caster isn't immune to the spell? And so on. On top of that, there are huge ideological concerns with ZoT. ZoT is a major invasion of privacy and, even more distressing, it's a violation of someone's free will (while helping the city guard investigate a murder, our bard cast ZoT and was arrested on the spot for exactly this reason).

TheFlyingCleric

2016-07-22, 03:39 AM

The caster knows if they made the save, but nobody else does. If you are trying to make a public spectacle, they deflect until they make a save and then publicly declare innocence. Your caster knows that was not necessarily the truth, but the crowd doesn't. Back to whom do you believe. The caster cannot even 100% say they lied, just that you don't know if it was the truth.

That's it, my next character will be a charlatan who insists he's a priest.

I'm certain that man is lying... Well he failed his charisma save! What do you mean you won't arrest him?!

If an actual cleric casts Zone of Truth on me, shouldn't be too hard to convince the guard that he's lying... My Detect Magic spell reveals nothing at all. Take him away, constable.

Very true.
Consider the situation where an apparently normal person is being interrogated by a magician using mind-controlling magic (ultimately that's what detect thoughts is). A magician who is associated with the law, and therefore authority and higher social classes.

Who do you think the common folk, who don't understand magic or magicians and fear the same, will side with? You only have the interrogators word for it after all.

Blue Lantern

2016-07-22, 04:00 AM

An unrelated question regarding saving throws that came into my mind because of an use of Zone of Truth in one session.

In 3.5 if I recall correctly there was a rule that said that if you had to make a saving throw you are aware of it. In 5e there is nothing specific, except some words regarding the fact that some spells are obvious when cast, other, more subtle can go completely unnoticed.

How do you handle this, because players are always aware of a saving throw being done, do you leave the dichotomy, and you think it would be an acceptable ruling to say that anyone is aware of a saving throw even if the reason for it may not be immediately obvious?

Sir_Leorik

2016-07-22, 04:49 AM

Looking at the description of Zone of Truth, it allows a Charisma Saving throw, and if a target fails the saving throw they know they can't lie, so they can pick their words carefully to avoid being detected. And a Ring of Mind Shielding can protect against it.

The really invasive spell is Detect Thoughts (or a Helm of Telepathy). One of the PCs in my game has a Helm of Telepathy and he uses it a lot to interrogate prisoners. While Detect Thoughts allows a saving throw, the save is only allowed if the spellcaster is probing deeper, not for a surface scan. Zone of Truth might reveal that someone is lying, but it won't ferret out hidden details the way Detect Thoughts does.

Freemason Than

2016-07-22, 05:26 AM

I don't think it's overpowered, but it is very DM-dependent. Due to it's binary nature, I think this spell is more about managing expectations, and most of its problems stem from players and DM's going into it with different ideas.

ZoT can solve plenty of social intrigue mysteries in no time. In my experience, the question is not so much: Would you, as a DM, allow Zone of Truth to work here? but instead Would you, as a DM, ever allow Zone of Truth to quickly solve an intrigue plot at all?

If the DM can't bring themselves to ever let a spell like this work at a time where it would really matter, they're better off just saying so up-front. It certainly feels more honest than coming up with all sorts of different ways to say "No, your idea isn't going to work."

Despite the tone of that previous sentence, I don't think there's really a right and wrong here. This is more a matter of game styles.
Some groups like silver bullet solutions. Others think it's just anticlimactic and lame, in a "why didn't the eagles drop the One Ring in Mount Doom?" way. If the players expect a silver bullet to work, but the DM disagrees (or vice versa) there's always going to be a problem.

Ultimately, I wouldn't say it trivializes intrigue, if only because not all mysteries need to be whodunits.
Sometimes it's all about figuring out how and why Duke McShady killed the king, and finding tangible, irrefutable proof of it.

Tanarii

2016-07-22, 06:27 AM

What's particular funny to me is that in the other thread, it was stated several times that people with "nothing to hide" would be perfectly willing to step into the Zone of Truth and answer questions willingly.

Clearly that's how people would react to such a spell. :smallamused:

Quild

2016-07-22, 06:52 AM

Zone of Truth never really worked against NPCs while I was a PC.

So I decided that it was more useful to use it on... myself.

I remember the following uses:
Threatening a guy and makes an intimidate check right after => circumstance bonus
Making my saving throw => Easy lie (used several times)
Failing my saving throw => Evasive answers, circumstance bonus to bluff checks
Failing my saving throw and getting us quite cornered because of that => Screw this, let's just kill them

ObBrust:

Imperial Adjudicator: "Did you kill Tagichatn?"
Vlad: "In my opinion, I believe he killed himself."

Vlad thinks to himself: "...by talking to me that way."

Also, by the way: Minor Illusion is a useful counter to Zone of Truth. Cast it surreptitiously, then cover your mouth with your hands and create the illusion of your voice speaking. The Zone of Truth caster [I]knows you can't lie, so you must have just told the truth, right?

Also, Modify Memory. Harry Dresden did that to Mab... didn't work, though.
Note that Zerika was perfectly aware of what Vlad meant :smalltongue:

JellyPooga

2016-07-22, 07:24 AM

What if someone is good at telling "truths"?

This is the major flaw in ZoT as an auto-win button. "A truth" is not the same as "the truth you're looking for". A skillful orator, whether he be con-man, charlatan, actor or politician, can easily deflect questions, give true answers that don't implicate himself, or otherwise corrupt the interrogation such that no definitive conclusion can be made. Yes, every word coming out of the subjects mouth is, in theory, the truth. That by no means makes whatever conclusion you come to also true.

On the subject of willing "truth-givers" or being unwilling being definitive proof of guilt; this is...nowhere near being a fair trial. Without a guarantee of what truth is being sought, I'm fair certain that most people would be wary of volunteering to be subject to the spell; who doesn't have anything to hide at all? If Mrs.Jones doesn't take the stand because she's afraid she'll be forced to answer questions about her infidelities with the postman, does not make her automatically guilty of murdering the innkeep at the local tavern.

No, Zone of Truth is a useful tool in certain circumstances, no doubt, but it's a far cry from the auto-win some seem to believe it is. There's a skill to using it, like any tool, but there's also a skill to evading it. One's called Investigation, the other Deception. Not every deception is necessarily a lie...

"You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

Blue Lantern

2016-07-22, 07:30 AM

JellyPooga

2016-07-22, 08:49 AM

I agree with you with just one caveat, when it comes out in actual play it can be pretty hard for a DM to come up with a truthful but misleading answer on the fly.

It depends on the GM really. For most GM's, you're right; because most GM's aren't lawyers, politicians or professional improvisational actors. If the GM is worth his salt, though, he always has the option of rolling dice, cutting to the chase and/or abstracting on behalf of a character he knows is a better talker than he, the GM is. It's an important skill knowing when to let the rules handle something you know you can't do justice and it's often better to be cagey or generalise than to be specific and outright bad or break suspension of disbelief.

wunderkid

2016-07-22, 11:30 AM

This is the major flaw in ZoT as an auto-win button. "A truth" is not the same as "the truth you're looking for". A skillful orator, whether he be con-man, charlatan, actor or politician, can easily deflect questions, give true answers that don't implicate himself, or otherwise corrupt the interrogation such that no definitive conclusion can be made. Yes, every word coming out of the subjects mouth is, in theory, the truth. That by no means makes whatever conclusion you come to also true.

On the subject of willing "truth-givers" or being unwilling being definitive proof of guilt; this is...nowhere near being a fair trial. Without a guarantee of what truth is being sought, I'm fair certain that most people would be wary of volunteering to be subject to the spell; who doesn't have anything to hide at all? If Mrs.Jones doesn't take the stand because she's afraid she'll be forced to answer questions about her infidelities with the postman, does not make her automatically guilty of murdering the innkeep at the local tavern.

No, Zone of Truth is a useful tool in certain circumstances, no doubt, but it's a far cry from the auto-win some seem to believe it is. There's a skill to using it, like any tool, but there's also a skill to evading it. One's called Investigation, the other Deception. Not every deception is necessarily a lie...

"You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

This is why in every instance I have used zone of truth the person being questions can only answer with yes/no responses. Or following a question they could answer how they liked 'was that answer you gave me misleading' or some variation there of.

Doesnt matter how skillful a conman you are YES/NO is binary either they lie or they tell the truth.

And if they tell you the 'truth' in a misleading way (like the example above of 'I didnt harm a hair on his head' being a 'truth' but a misleading one then the question of asking if they were being misleading clears that up nicely.)

The problem with the spell is that

a) its second level, so not a valuable resource.
b) It has a 10 minute duration.
c) No limit on the number of questions you can ask
d) the caster knows if you pass or fail the save. <- this one is the big one. you KNOW if they are telling the truth or not. The person who has devoted their entire lives to being the worlds greatest deceiver, spent years coming up with a cover, false identiy, accomplices who would confirm his legitimacy so on and so forth, can be undone in a minute of standing inside a ZoT and being asked 'are you who you say you are yes or no?'.

Now i will say i dont think ZoT is 'OP', i think its incredibly powerful. but it was simply the first thing that came to mind of a spell that can trivialise an encounter. Suggestion, dominate, and a whole host of others would do the same. and are simply things that a mundane character just cant achieve.

smcmike

2016-07-22, 11:41 AM

This is why in every instance I have used zone of truth the person being questions can only answer with yes/no responses. Or following a question they could answer how they liked 'was that answer you gave me misleading' or some variation there of.

Doesnt matter how skillful a conman you are YES/NO is binary either they lie or they tell the truth.

And if they tell you the 'truth' in a misleading way (like the example above of 'I didnt harm a hair on his head' being a 'truth' but a misleading one then the question of asking if they were being misleading clears that up nicely.)

The problem with the spell is that

a) its second level, so not a valuable resource.
b) It has a 10 minute duration.
c) No limit on the number of questions you can ask
d) the caster knows if you pass or fail the save. <- this one is the big one. you KNOW if they are telling the truth or not. The person who has devoted their entire lives to being the worlds greatest deceiver, spent years coming up with a cover, false identiy, accomplices who would confirm his legitimacy so on and so forth, can be undone in a minute of standing inside a ZoT and being asked 'are you who you say you are yes or no?'.

Now i will say i dont think ZoT is 'OP', i think its incredibly powerful. but it was simply the first thing that came to mind of a spell that can trivialise an encounter. Suggestion, dominate, and a whole host of others would do the same. and are simply things that a mundane character just cant achieve.

Putting someone in a position where you can demand yes/no answers requires a great deal of social capital. The world's greatest deceiver is not likely to be easily placed in such a circumstance, and he is also likely to have a rather strong Charisma save.

"Am I who I say I am, yes or no? Yes. (I say my true identity all the time. Just not to you)."

JellyPooga

2016-07-22, 11:47 AM

'are you who you say you are yes or no?'.

Yes/No binary can help, but it's by no means infallible. Take your example here; I am Lier McConman and I've spent years building up an identity as Hans Shopkeep the merchant. It's a false name, false birth-records, false papers, the works.

"Am I who I say I am? Yes, I am Hans Shopkeep". No-one else can claim the name in relation to that specific identity. The fact that the identity is false doesn't prevent the truth of my being that person for all intents and purposes. Ask my customers. I can truthfully claim to be both Hans AND McConman without makimg the other false. Your question established nothing that you did not already know.

If you are only looking for confirmation (e.g. "Is Hans Shopkeep a false identity, yes or no?") then Yes/No binary in a ZoT is useful, but you have to know or guess the answers before you ask the question. If you're trying to establish facts unknown, then it's much harder to get a reliable result.

Z3ro

2016-07-22, 11:51 AM

Doesnt matter how skillful a conman you are YES/NO is binary either they lie or they tell the truth.

But the spell doesn't require a yes/no answer. How are you forcing it, at the point of a sword? Shouting at them? Seems like you can't actually force an answer, especially if their answer is "It's more complicated than yes or no".

And if they tell you the 'truth' in a misleading way (like the example above of 'I didnt harm a hair on his head' being a 'truth' but a misleading one then the question of asking if they were being misleading clears that up nicely.)

This also doesn't seem foolproof. To use the example, what is "misleading"? They really didn't harm a hair on their head. There's no attempt to mislead; that's really true! It really comes back to the argument of "what they believe is true", for which we have no guidelines.

wunderkid

2016-07-22, 12:02 PM

Putting someone in a position where you can demand yes/no answers requires a great deal of social capital. The world's greatest deceiver is not likely to be easily placed in such a circumstance, and he is also likely to have a rather strong Charisma save.

"Am I who I say I am, yes or no? Yes. (I say my true identity all the time. Just not to you)."

Putting someone in a position where you can demand any answers zone of truth or otherwise requires a great deal of social capital (or pointy sticks, swords which adventurers never seem to be in short supply of)

And unless their save is high enough to NEVER fail then it doesn't matter how high their save is. In a single ZoT casting they have to pass 100 saves to be completely unaffected.

wunderkid

2016-07-22, 12:05 PM

Yes/No binary can help, but it's by no means infallible. Take your example here; I am Lier McConman and I've spent years building up an identity as Hans Shopkeep the merchant. It's a false name, false birth-records, false papers, the works.

"Am I who I say I am? Yes, I am Hans Shopkeep". No-one else can claim the name in relation to that specific identity. The fact that the identity is false doesn't prevent the truth of my being that person for all intents and purposes. Ask my customers. I can truthfully claim to be both Hans AND McConman without makimg the other false. Your question established nothing that you did not already know.

If you are only looking for confirmation (e.g. "Is Hans Shopkeep a false identity, yes or no?") then Yes/No binary in a ZoT is useful, but you have to know or guess the answers before you ask the question. If you're trying to establish facts unknown, then it's much harder to get a reliable result.

No. They are not hans shopkeeper. That is a lie as hans shopkeeper doesn't really exist. They may have created that as an alternate identity. But claiming to be someone you are not does not make it truthful just because nobody else claims to be that person.

Yes if you word your questions poorly/ambigiously a yes/no won't be sufficient but you have 10 minutes to ask as many questions as you like

wunderkid

2016-07-22, 12:07 PM

But the spell doesn't require a yes/no answer. How are you forcing it, at the point of a sword? Shouting at them? Seems like you can't actually force an answer, especially if their answer is "It's more complicated than yes or no".

This also doesn't seem foolproof. To use the example, what is "misleading"? They really didn't harm a hair on their head. There's no attempt to mislead; that's really true! It really comes back to the argument of "what they believe is true", for which we have no guidelines.

Oh no that's completely misleading. That person knows your question and the answer they gave doesn't match up. It's the truth but it's a deception.

You know you hurt bob. The question was obviously asking if you hurt bob. You answered in a way that made it seem like you did not hurt bob. That is misleading.

JNAProductions

2016-07-22, 12:08 PM

Z3ro

2016-07-22, 12:29 PM

Oh no that's completely misleading. That person knows your question and the answer they gave doesn't match up. It's the truth but it's a deception.

You know you hurt bob. The question was obviously asking if you hurt bob. You answered in a way that made it seem like you did not hurt bob. That is misleading.

The problem is zone of truth is a mental game. It doesn't make the target omniscient, so the answers are up to their interprutation of the question. Truth is not an absolute, it's a slippery thing, just ask a lawyer.

Did that answer intend to mislead you? Maybe. But if the person giving it believes he was simply giving part of the truth, did he mislead you? Obviously you think yes but if his head said no, that's the truth to him.

Mellack

2016-07-22, 12:33 PM

Putting someone in a position where you can demand any answers zone of truth or otherwise requires a great deal of social capital (or pointy sticks, swords which adventurers never seem to be in short supply of)

And unless their save is high enough to NEVER fail then it doesn't matter how high their save is. In a single ZoT casting they have to pass 100 saves to be completely unaffected.

Each round they get a save. Each round is only 6 seconds. It is fairly easy to deflect or stall for a few seconds to make it to the next round. Ask for a clarification or repeat the question.
As to misleading answers, how is the subject supposed to know how you interpret their answer. They can truthfully say they do not know if you misunderstood them, as they cannot read your mind.

Z3ro

2016-07-22, 12:56 PM

As to misleading answers, how is the subject supposed to know how you interpret their answer. They can truthfully say they do not know if you misunderstood them, as they cannot read your mind.

That's a great point. The misleading question could be phrased two ways: 1) Did you mislead me or 2) Did you attempt to mislead me? For 1), as you said, how do I know if you believed me? For 2), I didn't attempt to, I did. Both answers completely truthful, and totally misleading.

georgie_leech

2016-07-22, 01:00 PM

That's a great point. The misleading question could be phrased two ways: 1) Did you mislead me or 2) Did you attempt to mislead me? For 1), as you said, how do I know if you believed me? For 2), I didn't attempt to, I did. Both answers completely truthful, and totally misleading.

For clarity, this is saying 'no' was a valid answer to these questions. And what this illustrates is that a good conman can deceive with the truth as well as with lies. Heck, one of my favourite stories includes the line 'our biggest score ever, and all we had to do was tell our mark exactly what we were doing to him!'

WereRabbitz

2016-07-22, 01:20 PM

Best way to annoy someone using ZoT is to Pass the Save and then tell them the Truth anyway.

They won't know it's the truth and you can keep them running in circles for a while.

Also side question. If someone completely believes something is the truth (like their uncle died of drinking)
but it is in fact a lie (He was stabbed during poker and they lied to his grandson about how he died).

I would wager failing a Zone of Truth he would say his Uncle died of drinking because that is what the PERSON believes.

Do you guys agree?

krugaan

2016-07-22, 01:21 PM

In the scenario I quoted in the OP the person in the zone of truth is completely at the parties mercy. At that point they are spending a second level spell slot for what is the situations equivalent of bumpers in bowling: you've lowered your floor but haven't raised your ceiling. A zone of truth isn't an i-win button over an encounter, it gives a particular avenue to overcome a particular obstacle, but it's neither fool-proof nor always applicable.

Bumpers in bowling totally remove the possibility of a null score ... you wouldn't call that powerful? While I admit it's not an "I-win in all social situations", it is an exceptionally powerful and unique within it's limitations, namely interrogations. The slot requirement is something of a non-issue anyway.

Insight checks, bribes, threats, negotiation? Follow them and see what they do?

Again ... removing *almost all* uncertainty in information gathering makes for a very powerful spell. Torture sucks for information gathering because the information is unreliable. Zone of truth conveniently gets around that issue. Totalitarian governments of the world, unite!

wunderkid

2016-07-22, 01:46 PM

But it's not untrue. That's the key-you can mislead all you want. You just can't tell a technical lie.

Yes it is untrue. You killed bob. I bring you in for questioning.

I ask did you kill bob?
You reply I did not harm a hair on his head? (Which is technically true although the phrase did not harm a hair on someone's head is actually meaning that they have not been hurt in anyway not even the hairs on their head so you know full well it's misleading what people think the phrase means and what you are saying it meaning)

I asked did you try to mislead me with your last answer yes or no?

To tell the truth you have to answer yes to that. Because you were misleading me.

JNAProductions

2016-07-22, 01:48 PM

Yes it is untrue. You killed bob. I bring you in for questioning.

I ask did you kill bob?
You reply I did not harm a hair on his head? (Which is technically true although the phrase did not harm a hair on someone's head is actually meaning that they have not been hurt in anyway not even the hairs on their head so you know full well it's misleading what people think the phrase means and what you are saying it meaning)

I asked did you try to mislead me with your last answer yes or no?

To tell the truth you have to answer yes to that. Because you were misleading me.

"Did you kill Bob?"

"I didn't harm a hair on his head!" (I stabbed him in the chest.)

"Did you try to mislead me with that last answer?"

"Of course not." (I clearly succeeded at it.)

krugaan

2016-07-22, 02:01 PM

"Did you kill Bob?"

"I didn't harm a hair on his head!" (I stabbed him in the chest.)

"Restrict your answers to 'yes' or 'no' or I'm going to start at the extremities and work my way in. Did you kill Bob?"

"I didn't ... AUGUAHRGUAHSLHGASGHSGS"

/apinkylater

"Yes."

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-07-22, 02:01 PM

The amount of failed pedantry in this thread is hilarious. The fact that attempts can be successful is just one of the silly examples. It's like ye olde wish twisting threads from the 3.5 boards where people would just start omitting words in the wish request to "twist" it.

JNAProductions

2016-07-22, 02:03 PM

"Restrict your answers to 'yes' or 'no' or I'm going to start at the extremities and work my way in. Did you kill Bob?"

"I didn't ... AUGUAHRGUAHSLHGASGHSGS"

/apinkylater

"Yes."

Because that's the way to win people over. This requires you to be in a position where you're allowed to torture possibly innocent people.

Also, it requires you to be willing to torture.

JellyPooga

2016-07-22, 02:21 PM

No. They are not hans shopkeeper. That is a lie as hans shopkeeper doesn't really exist. They may have created that as an alternate identity. But claiming to be someone you are not does not make it truthful just because nobody else claims to be that person.

"Are you wunderkid?"
"Are you [insert your real name here]"

"Wunderkid" is a created identity. If you answered "yes" to the 1st question, you are telling the truth. While posting on the GitP Forums, that's who you are. It is a truth. It's the only identity I know you as. The fact that you also have another identity as whoever you are doesn't make the other any less "true". If you were also the owner of a business, you could also claim another identity as the head of that business. If you had a title, such as the Earl of Kent, that would be another identity. So on and so forth.

Claiming to be any of these is a true statement that does not invalidate the truth of stating that you are any of the others. Whether you've made up that identity, had it bestowed upon you, if it's a nickname or whatever, the truth is what people perceive it to be under the circumstances they are acting under. A "false" identity in which you are a shopkeeper is still an identity you can truthfully claim as your own, regardless of your other identities.

If, under the effect of a ZoT, someone asked if you were wunderkind, yes or no, you could not answer "no". Just as McConman from my example must answer "yes" when asked for a yes/no answer as to whether or not he is Mr.Shopkeep. An individual is one person, but that doesn't prevent them from having multiple identities and identifying oneself as any of your identities is the truth.

Truth, contrary to popular opinion, is a subjective notion. 500 years ago, people knew the truth that the world is flat. Today, we know the truth is that the world is a sphere. Imagine what the truth will be tomorrow. (I'm pretty sure that's an indirect quote from somewhere, but I don't recall where).

RickAllison

2016-07-22, 02:22 PM

No. They are not hans shopkeeper. That is a lie as hans shopkeeper doesn't really exist. They may have created that as an alternate identity. But claiming to be someone you are not does not make it truthful just because nobody else claims to be that person.

Yeah, that is false. If someone was in Witness Protection and changed their name (or changed their name for any other reason), they would be lying by your apparent criteria. They may have been born under one name, but a person can have many. Someone who has lived as Fuzzy McFurrypants for years and it would ring true.

The verb "be" doesn't just mean what someone intrisically is. It also encompasses temporary modifiers, qualities, and conditions. A good qualifier for whether someone is telling the truth when they declare they "are" someone is how they would react to someone saying that name. If they would react to it, they internally acknowledge that they associate the identity of the person with his or herself.

A good example of this would be Prince Charming from Once Upon a Time. He was not born that person, and for a while wore it as a mask. However, he now associates himself as Prince Charming while still knowing he is his previous identity as well.

In the case of a charlatan who wears many names, asking if he is a person is going to be easily answered as truth. Fuzzy, for example, could truthfully answer that he is Falco if that is one of the aliases he has created. Where one could trip him up (and this factors into why ZoT is powerful, not OP) is when they ask "Are you Fuzzy McFurrypants?" He can truthfully acknowledge that he is Falco, but it would take much more weaseling to evade the truth that he is Fuzzy, even though his true name is neither of the two.

Mellack

2016-07-22, 02:22 PM

Q: "Did you kill that man?"
A: "No" the dagger did that

If you cannot accept that instruments do killings:

Q: "Did you kill that man?"
A: "No" I was just an instrument hired to do it.

Z3ro

2016-07-22, 02:44 PM

"Restrict your answers to 'yes' or 'no' or I'm going to start at the extremities and work my way in. Did you kill Bob?"

"I didn't ... AUGUAHRGUAHSLHGASGHSGS"

/apinkylater

"Yes."

Man, hardcore.

But still prone to ZoT errors: "Did you kill Bob?" "No"(blood-loss did).

krugaan

2016-07-22, 03:12 PM

Because that's the way to win people over. This requires you to be in a position where you're allowed to torture possibly innocent people.

Also, it requires you to be willing to torture.

Given the amount of word twisting going on in this thread, I doubt people will find difficulties in rationalizing torture if the ends justify the means.

Although yes, even neutrally aligned people will want to avoid the whole harming innocents thing. If only there were a way to find out if they were innocent... it's almost like there's a spell for that sort of thing...

Q: "Did you kill that man?"
A: "No" the dagger did that

If you cannot accept that instruments do killings:

Q: "Did you kill that man?"
A: "No" I was just an instrument hired to do it.

Yeah...

Man, hardcore.

Yeah, kinda. I ... er ... wouldn't resort to that first off.

But still prone to ZoT errors: "Did you kill Bob?" "No"(blood-loss did).

If your DM begins doing this, don't ever cast wish. I would be tempted not to play at all. I get that you guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing, but really, this is ridiculous.

Cybren

2016-07-22, 03:35 PM

Bumpers in bowling totally remove the possibility of a null score ... you wouldn't call that powerful? While I admit it's not an "I-win in all social situations", it is an exceptionally powerful and unique within it's limitations, namely interrogations. The slot requirement is something of a non-issue anyway.

Again ... removing *almost all* uncertainty in information gathering makes for a very powerful spell. Torture sucks for information gathering because the information is unreliable. Zone of truth conveniently gets around that issue. Totalitarian governments of the world, unite!

you don't seem to understand what the ceiling/floor metaphor was.

krugaan

2016-07-22, 03:46 PM

you don't seem to understand what the ceiling/floor metaphor was.

Floor as in lowest expected outcome and ceiling as in highest ... do I have it right?

edit: generally feats, class abilities, and spells which can raise your floor are very powerful. See: reliable talent, glibness, pass without trace, portent...

wunderkid

2016-07-22, 04:38 PM

Q: "Did you kill that man?"
A: "No" the dagger did that

If you cannot accept that instruments do killings:

Q: "Did you kill that man?"
A: "No" I was just an instrument hired to do it.

In which case you never have to roll for deception? Because you're telling the truth. So in your game I could make a character who can tell any lie possible and because I've decided that my character thinks in that way every person I meet believes I'm being truthful? Because I am.

Mellack

2016-07-22, 04:45 PM

Believe you and believes you are being truthful are two different things. You can believe that squirrels carry secret messages from God and I can accept that you are telling me what you believe to be the truth. Doesn't mean I believe you are correct. I would assume you are bonkers. People believe all sorts of things are true that are also wrong. Some people truly believe the Dodgers are a great baseball team, doesn't make them right. :)

krugaan

2016-07-22, 04:49 PM

In which case you never have to roll for deception? Because you're telling the truth. So in your game I could make a character who can tell any lie possible and because I've decided that my character thinks in that way every person I meet believes I'm being truthful? Because I am.

No, he'll just never get XP for "killing" something.

He will have a very worldly dagger, though.

ZX6Rob

2016-07-22, 05:30 PM

"I ask you, yea or nay, did you kill the Duke?"

"I harmed not a hair on his head." (Technically correct -- as has been mentioned, the Duke's hair was immaculate in his death)

"You will restrict your answers to 'yes' or 'no'. Did you kill the Duke?"

"Will I? Tell me, prosecutor, how are these people to know that you are, indeed, who and what you say you are? That you yourself not some charlatan and huckster, and that your spells do as they say?" (Stalling for time)

"I am not the one on trial here, criminal. Now, I ask a third time, did you kill the Duke?"

"Do you hear that? 'Criminal', he calls me! Am I to believe this is justice? Or has judgement already been passed, regardless of what I say?" (Continued stalling, attempt to misdirect.)

"I have run out of patience! You will answer me! Yes or no, did you kill the Duke!"

"See his face now, the rage in it! I believe, to my core I believe -- and if you are to take this man's word for it, I cannot lie while I stand in this circle -- that he intends to see me hanged for a crime that he cannot prove was committed by me! Will you all stand idly by while this goes on?" (Further misdirection, technical truths -- if the prosecutor could prove that the con-man committed the crime, the trial -- and the Zone -- would be unnecessary)

*DM calls for an appropriate check (Persuasion or Deception) to see if the con-man's words are swaying the jury or the crowd; success!*

*murmurs from the crowd*

"There will be order! I will not ask again, and you must answer truthfully and simply, with no misdirection! Did you kill the Duke, yes or no!"

*The con-man, having stalled long enough to gather his mental strength, manages at this point to shake off the effects of the spell thanks to a successful save.*

"No. In fact I did not" (A lie, but one allowed due to his successful save moments ago!)

"A lie! I know that you have broken the spell!"

*The con-artist at this point feels the spell's influence over him once more*

"Oh, and what mockery of justice is this?! I submit to your supposed magical probings, I stand in your circle of judgement, and I answer your question, and yet still you accuse me of falsehoods! Do you see this, people! Do you see this, citizens! This is your judgement! This is your justice, and your truth!" (Once again, misdirection and attempts to sway the conversation, capitalizing on the fact that no one but the caster knows for certain that he is lying)

*The DM calls for another Charisma check to judge the crowd's reaction*

*The crowd's murmurs become angry questions and shouts. It is clear now that the mood of the room is turning against the bull-headed prosecutor. Perhaps our con-man will be able to talk himself out of this after all!*

---

Each one of these times our con-man gets to save again (it's about every six seconds, right?) against the spell's effects. The caster is the only one who knows for sure that he's able to lie or that he's escaped the spell's effects. By carefully biding his time and evasively speaking, he manages to slip in a lie in the most convenient place. Since only the caster knows for sure if he's telling the truth, it becomes the con-man's word against the caster's. At this point, the charismatic con-man has begun to sway the attitude of the room.

Zone of Truth is a good tool, and best used against those who can't fast-talk their way out of it, but it's by no means an unbreakable, game-ending spell. Simply specifying that you have to answer in a binary, yes-no fashion isn't enough to guarantee that the answer you get is actually truthful, and in fact, the spell provides no means of compelling someone to do so. About the only way to do that is by force, but at that point, it's no different than tying a prisoner to a chair and beating him until he says what you want him to. And to anyone watching -- because in almost every example given so far, the truth matters to more than just the person casting the spell -- you (the caster) look like an unhinged lunatic.

I like Zone of Truth specifically because of this property, though. When it works, and the players use it to their advantage to gain information they need, they feel smart. They used their tools effectively and perhaps bypassed some trouble they would have encountered later, or they were able to bring about a good outcome by outing a liar. When it doesn't work, I get to play a charismatic, double-talking villain who's so good at conniving that I can talk my way out of magical truth-serum, and that makes for a memorable encounter. The heroes may have to make some difficult moral choices once they discover that simply compelling someone to tell the truth doesn't mean they have to be straightforward about it.

So, is it OP? Nah, certainly not. It's a great way to question underlings and henchmen, a great way to get reliable intel from captured mooks, but as for catching clever, conniving, charismatic grand viziers in their web of falsehoods? Well, a bad con-man tells lies. A good one always speaks the truth.

From a certain point-of-view.

RickAllison

2016-07-22, 05:32 PM

krugaan

2016-07-22, 05:43 PM

"I ask you, yea or nay, did you kill the Duke?"

/snip

Zone of Truth is a good tool, and best used against those who can't fast-talk their way out of it, but it's by no means an unbreakable, game-ending spell. Simply specifying that you have to answer in a binary, yes-no fashion isn't enough to guarantee that the answer you get is actually truthful, and in fact, the spell provides no means of compelling someone to do so. About the only way to do that is by force, but at that point, it's no different than tying a prisoner to a chair and beating him until he says what you want him to. And to anyone watching -- because in almost every example given so far, the truth matters to more than just the person casting the spell -- you (the caster) look like an unhinged lunatic.

This. Why people are trying to portray it as some kind of "perfect witness on the stand" spell. It's an information gathering tool, possibly with ancillary uses ("You see two guards guarding two doors..."). Detect thoughts and zone of truth should, in theory, reveal almost any secret.

Cybren

2016-07-22, 05:45 PM

This. Why people are trying to portray it as some kind of "perfect witness on the stand" spell. It's an information gathering tool, possibly with ancillary uses ("You see two guards guarding two doors..."). Detect thoughts and zone of truth should, in theory, reveal almost any secret.

The thing I found odd is that wunderkid is basically saying "against targets that are completely at your mercy, zone of truth trivializes encounters". Except, if you're in a situation where you can kill them if they evade your questions, the encounter was already trivial.

RickAllison

2016-07-22, 05:47 PM

This. Why people are trying to portray it as some kind of "perfect witness on the stand" spell. It's an information gathering tool, possibly with ancillary uses ("You see two guards guarding two doors..."). Detect thoughts and zone of truth should, in theory, reveal almost any secret.

To make it reliable, you really need to have both the ZoT from the caster and a separate ZoT on the caster. Without that, how can you know the interrogator is telling the truth?

wunderkid

2016-07-22, 05:54 PM

ZX6Rob

2016-07-22, 05:55 PM

To make it reliable, you really need to have both the ZoT from the caster and a separate ZoT on the caster. Without that, how can you know the interrogator is telling the truth?

Ah, but what if the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting ZoT is, in fact, in the pocket of the man on trial, and has been paid to falsify his testimony!

We should probably cast ZoT on him as well, just to be sure.

BUT!

What if THAT GUY is in the pocket of the wealthy con-man?! We should probably cast ZoT on the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting ZoT. Just to be sure.

BUT WAIT!

What if THAT OTHER GUY is the man on the take?!

We should probably cast ZoT on the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting...

Eh. This bit's run its course, but you get what I'm saying. It's a veritable matryoshka doll of nested Zones.

... Most PCs however don't have the same qualms about needing a public audience or going against the law to bring a criminal to justice. And that fast talker just admitted his guilt by blatantly working around it. To any character I've ever played that would be enough for me to bring the fast talker to justice with or without the legal systems backing.

I tend to play more punisher esque characters. But I've basically never seen a group who would ignore evil because the law tells them no. That could be just the people I play with. But very rarely do adventurers adhere strictly to the law if it is protecting something evil.

Okay, I guess, but, I mean... That's not really Zone of Truth trivializing an encounter. That's Zone of Truth giving you a flimsy excuse to go Frank Castle on someone who is completely at your mercy. If that's the case, why even bother with the Zone? The Punisher never was much one for due process, he just straight-up ganks dudes that he's decided are guilty, usually without asking them first.

wunderkid

2016-07-22, 06:01 PM

The thing I found odd is that wunderkid is basically saying "against targets that are completely at your mercy, zone of truth trivializes encounters". Except, if you're in a situation where you can kill them if they evade your questions, the encounter was already trivial.

How on earth do you figure that?

You have a henchman. He has information you need. Information that can save you from the bbeg.

Without zone of truth he lies to you. You believe him because he is a good lier and fall into a trap. You have the choice then if you actually believe him or think that he spoke the truth but decide not to act on it. It gives the players choice and agency.

With zone of truth he doesn't lie to you. There is no risk of the trap. It's binary he lies and you know. He tells the truth and you know.

Either situation he is at your mercy. Either situation you can kill him if he evades your questions. Only without zone of truth it becomes a much more interesting scenario which could go either way. The players may believe he just turned on his master to save his own skin and fall for his lies. Or succeed at rolls. Or anything that isn't a binary you make saves till you fail. Because the dice rolling in zone of truth let's be honest is hogwash and almost pointless in most scenarios

wunderkid

2016-07-22, 06:03 PM

Ah, but what if the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting ZoT is, in fact, in the pocket of the man on trial, and has been paid to falsify his testimony!

We should probably cast ZoT on him as well, just to be sure.

BUT!

What if THAT GUY is in the pocket of the wealthy con-man?! We should probably cast ZoT on the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting ZoT. Just to be sure.

BUT WAIT!

What if THAT OTHER GUY is the man on the take?!

We should probably cast ZoT on the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting...

Eh. This bit's run its course, but you get what I'm saying. It's a veritable matryoshka doll of nested Zones.

Okay, I guess, but, I mean... That's not really Zone of Truth trivializing an encounter. That's Zone of Truth giving you a flimsy excuse to go Frank Castle on someone who is completely at your mercy. If that's the case, why even bother with the Zone? The Punisher never was much one for due process, he just straight-up ganks dudes that he's decided are guilty, usually without asking them first.

Actually frank usually always did his research first. And on the occasions in the comics where he was tricked into killing an innocent he went double hardcore on the one who tricked him.

But if he had a way for proving people's guilt like ZoT you can bet your ass he would make that spell work for him. It combos incredibly with torture. If you're so inclined. But that's a case for PC rather than the spell itself.

krugaan

2016-07-22, 06:29 PM

The thing I found odd is that wunderkid is basically saying "against targets that are completely at your mercy, zone of truth trivializes encounters". Except, if you're in a situation where you can kill them if they evade your questions, the encounter was already trivial.

Grunt, actually ... I'm having a hard time thinking of a case where zone of truth is strictly necessary. Assuming:

a) the subject has information you want
b) is hostile
c) is completely under your power

a combination of charm person / suggestion / torture, and detect thoughts should work... if we assume a person has a difficult time thinking lies.

Zone of truth could best be used as a sort of magical notary spell.

PS. Psychic damage leaves no incriminating marks ... vicious mockery as best interrogation tool?

edit: although, lets be honest, ZoT + compulsion of some sort is by far the easiest way to extract usable information from a person.

ZX6Rob

2016-07-22, 06:33 PM

Actually frank usually always did his research first. And on the occasions in the comics where he was tricked into killing an innocent he went double hardcore on the one who tricked him.
Okay. That guy's still dead, though. The one he murdered by accident, I mean.

But if he had a way for proving people's guilt like ZoT you can bet your ass he would make that spell work for him. It combos incredibly with torture. If you're so inclined. But that's a case for PC rather than the spell itself.

Well, I mean, this goes back to the original question, though: is Zone of Truth overpowered for a second-level spell, and does using it trivialize encounters? So, in the example in your reply to Cybren, you've got a mook, maybe he's a goblin, and you've incapacitated him and are questioning him as to the presence of, let's say, a trap in the next room.

First off, is that an encounter? I think that's debatable, but as a DM, I'd say it's not. The "encounter" was whatever events led up to your capture of the goblin, be it a fight, a surprise ambush, or whatever. But now that you've got him, and he clearly poses no threat to you in the moment, this isn't an encounter. This is just an interaction.

Now, if we take it as true that the interrogation of our gormless goblin prisoner is not an encounter, then there's nothing to trivialize. XP isn't on the line here, so it isn't like the players are getting something for nothing. Let's instead investigate what it is that the players are trying to achieve. That is, what is their objective in questioning our goblin crony?

In the example you provided, the players are concerned that there may be a trap of some kind that they are walking into. So, the object of the players is to determine whether or not their suspicions are true, which will allow them to avoid the trap if it exists. They have a few means of doing so.

They could try to bargain with the goblin, offering him a reward in an attempt to appeal to his self-interest, in exchange for information. If the reward is good enough, and the goblin is greedy enough, they may be able to rely on this information.
If they think the goblin is recalcitrant, they may choose to bully or intimidate him, attempting to force the information from him. Depending on the disposition of your players, this could get ugly, but it's likely that they'll get what they want.
The players could use some of their magical resources to attempt to get an answer from the goblin. They may choose to charm it, or use illusions to disguise themselves as its superior, or may cast Zone of Truth and attempt to question it, depending on the circumstances.

The first two options don't require the expenditure of any resource besides time. By succeeding with any one of these options, the players may learn information that prevents them from having to deal with a trap in the next room, presuming, of course, that it exists. By using the third option, the players spend some of their resources, but have a better chance of succeeding in their goal. The cost of this is that they have one less second-level spell to use during the rest of their adventure. The players must weigh whether or not the return on this expenditure of a resource will yield a great enough value that it outweighs the lack of having the spell slot available for a later encounter.

So, I don't think it's entirely fair to say that Zone of Truth is entirely binary, because if the players are thinking about the future at all, they have to weigh the cost of its use and determine if it is actually the best course of action. Spellcasters will have to decide if having it available is worth one of their precious spells known or memorized, which limits their versatility in exploration and combat. Granted, in the empty-room example of one lowly goblin mook who a) may know whether or not there is a potentially deadly trap in your immediate future, and b) is inclined to lie through his teeth to you regardless of your approach, Zone of Truth is a very useful and powerful tool.

But is it overpowered? Well, there's been several examples of ways in which the effect of the spell can be deferred or defeated even when a creature under its influence fails their save. It isn't likely to be able to solve a combat encounter outright, and even most situations outside of questioning a scared minion provide enough nuance that a clever DM has some latitude with the spell's effects.

Now, personally, as a DM, I hate (HATE) interrogation scenes. Most players think they're kind of boring, too. So, if players have a tool in their arsenal that can shortcut these sorts of things and get the adventure moving again, that's pretty great for me. If they use it in almost any other social situation, then there's a lot of nuance, double-speak, and "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct!"-kinds of things that I can do, and that makes for a fun interaction. How do you handle it as a player and a DM when you KNOW that someone is lying, but you're the only one and have no real reliable way to prove that to anyone else?

SO!

Is Zone of Truth an overpowered spell? I submit that it is not. It is very effective in some situations, less effective in others, and downright dangerous in some -- exactly as a good spell should be! Your mileage may vary, based on your tolerance for smirking double-speak and evasive answers.

RickAllison

2016-07-22, 06:34 PM

Ah, but what if the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting ZoT is, in fact, in the pocket of the man on trial, and has been paid to falsify his testimony!

We should probably cast ZoT on him as well, just to be sure.

BUT!

What if THAT GUY is in the pocket of the wealthy con-man?! We should probably cast ZoT on the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting ZoT. Just to be sure.

BUT WAIT!

What if THAT OTHER GUY is the man on the take?!

We should probably cast ZoT on the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting ZoT on the guy casting...

Eh. This bit's run its course, but you get what I'm saying. It's a veritable matryoshka doll of nested Zones.

Okay, I guess, but, I mean... That's not really Zone of Truth trivializing an encounter. That's Zone of Truth giving you a flimsy excuse to go Frank Castle on someone who is completely at your mercy. If that's the case, why even bother with the Zone? The Punisher never was much one for due process, he just straight-up ganks dudes that he's decided are guilty, usually without asking them first.

The way I figured the nesting would go is the second person is actually secret, known only to the king/spymaster. He doesn't do much, getting to mostly just hang out while getting payed, but he just is there to act as a check on the (public, and thus targetable) interrogator.

Mellack

2016-07-22, 07:01 PM

If you limit it to only yes/no answers, you really can't get any new information. The best you can do is confirm things you already know. That is the opposite of overpowered. To get any new information, you have to let them speak freely, with then opens it up to saying things that are misleading.
If the subject is so completely under your power that you can force them to answer, only answer yes/no, and punish them for non-compliance, the ZoT is not trivializing anything. At that point the situation is trivial already.

krugaan

2016-07-22, 07:05 PM

wunderkid

2016-07-22, 07:07 PM

Okay. That guy's still dead, though. The one he murdered by accident, I mean.

Well, I mean, this goes back to the original question, though: is Zone of Truth overpowered for a second-level spell, and does using it trivialize encounters? So, in the example in your reply to Cybren, you've got a mook, maybe he's a goblin, and you've incapacitated him and are questioning him as to the presence of, let's say, a trap in the next room.

First off, is that an encounter? I think that's debatable, but as a DM, I'd say it's not. The "encounter" was whatever events led up to your capture of the goblin, be it a fight, a surprise ambush, or whatever. But now that you've got him, and he clearly poses no threat to you in the moment, this isn't an encounter. This is just an interaction.

Now, if we take it as true that the interrogation of our gormless goblin prisoner is not an encounter, then there's nothing to trivialize. XP isn't on the line here, so it isn't like the players are getting something for nothing. Let's instead investigate what it is that the players are trying to achieve. That is, what is their objective in questioning our goblin crony?

In the example you provided, the players are concerned that there may be a trap of some kind that they are walking into. So, the object of the players is to determine whether or not their suspicions are true, which will allow them to avoid the trap if it exists. They have a few means of doing so.

They could try to bargain with the goblin, offering him a reward in an attempt to appeal to his self-interest, in exchange for information. If the reward is good enough, and the goblin is greedy enough, they may be able to rely on this information.
If they think the goblin is recalcitrant, they may choose to bully or intimidate him, attempting to force the information from him. Depending on the disposition of your players, this could get ugly, but it's likely that they'll get what they want.
The players could use some of their magical resources to attempt to get an answer from the goblin. They may choose to charm it, or use illusions to disguise themselves as its superior, or may cast Zone of Truth and attempt to question it, depending on the circumstances.

The first two options don't require the expenditure of any resource besides time. By succeeding with any one of these options, the players may learn information that prevents them from having to deal with a trap in the next room, presuming, of course, that it exists. By using the third option, the players spend some of their resources, but have a better chance of succeeding in their goal. The cost of this is that they have one less second-level spell to use during the rest of their adventure. The players must weigh whether or not the return on this expenditure of a resource will yield a great enough value that it outweighs the lack of having the spell slot available for a later encounter.

So, I don't think it's entirely fair to say that Zone of Truth is entirely binary, because if the players are thinking about the future at all, they have to weigh the cost of its use and determine if it is actually the best course of action. Spellcasters will have to decide if having it available is worth one of their precious spells known or memorized, which limits their versatility in exploration and combat. Granted, in the empty-room example of one lowly goblin mook who a) may know whether or not there is a potentially deadly trap in your immediate future, and b) is inclined to lie through his teeth to you regardless of your approach, Zone of Truth is a very useful and powerful tool.

But is it overpowered? Well, there's been several examples of ways in which the effect of the spell can be deferred or defeated even when a creature under its influence fails their save. It isn't likely to be able to solve a combat encounter outright, and even most situations outside of questioning a scared minion provide enough nuance that a clever DM has some latitude with the spell's effects.

Now, personally, as a DM, I hate (HATE) interrogation scenes. Most players think they're kind of boring, too. So, if players have a tool in their arsenal that can shortcut these sorts of things and get the adventure moving again, that's pretty great for me. If they use it in almost any other social situation, then there's a lot of nuance, double-speak, and "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct!"-kinds of things that I can do, and that makes for a fun interaction. How do you handle it as a player and a DM when you KNOW that someone is lying, but you're the only one and have no real reliable way to prove that to anyone else?

SO!

Is Zone of Truth an overpowered spell? I submit that it is not. It is very effective in some situations, less effective in others, and downright dangerous in some -- exactly as a good spell should be! Your mileage may vary, based on your tolerance for smirking double-speak and evasive answers.

I would like to point out I never claimed ZoT was overpowered. Just that it was a very powerful tool that can trivialise encounters. Not that it always will. And there are many many other spells which do the job of trivializing things. So while alone ZoT doesn't make every situation a cake walk it, along with other spells create a very real scenario where magic allows you to achieve your goals in a way Mundane never could.

Taking your three examples.

Bribing, bullying and magic.

Out of the three magic is the only way you will KNOW you're not being lied to. The other two involve you taking a risk that their greed or fear outweighs their loyalty. This risk to me is what makes things interesting.

And the original context of this entire debate was me saying:
PAM + sentinel is not OP because you have spells that can trivialise most things including some fight based encounters. So let the Mundanes have their frankly average combo without nerfing it.

ZoT was simply the first example I gave. Not that it was OP or broken. Just that it is an example of how a spell can trivialise an encounter. And this seems to have spiralled from there.

uraniumrooster

2016-07-22, 09:43 PM

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Reminds me of law school.

Here's my take...

The main effect clause of the spell reads "On a failed save, a creature can’t speak a deliberate lie while in the radius." There's an important difference between "can't speak a deliberate lie" and "must speak the absolute truth." In this case, if an affected creature attempted to speak words it knew to be untrue with the intent to deceive, it would be prevented from speaking. However, the spell also allows the speaker to "avoid answering questions to which it would normally respond with a lie" or "be evasive in its answers as long as it remains within the boundaries of the truth." This indicates that the spell allows for semantics and truth values that fall outside the true/false binary.

How one defines the "boundaries of truth" is going to vary, and every DM will rule that in a slightly different way. I would personally use a 4-tiered approach:

Always True. This statement is true under any conditions.
Depends on Conditions. This statement could be true or it could be false, depending on the conditions.
Always False. There's no wiggle room, this statement is an outright lie.
Irrelevant. This statement is either meaningless or has no truth value.

Tier 1 statements would always be accepted by Zone of Truth, but they are exceptionally rare (perhaps even non-existent, but I don't want to paint myself into a corner). Tier 2 would depend on the conditions given by the questioner or the speaker, and would have to be ruled on a case by case basis, but this type of statement given without sufficient qualifying conditions would have to be accepted by the spell because it could not be determined to be false, even if it is misleading (and again, the spell doesn't require a statement be true, it simply prevents any statement that is false, so a statement that could be true or could be false must be accepted). Tier 3 statements would always be rejected by the spell, but these are again extremely rare. Tier 4 is where a clever speaker has the most wiggle room to mislead an audience, as they can use doublespeak and clever jargon to give a statement that sounds good but means nothing (there are countless examples of politicians, business execs, etc., using this type of statement in real life). A question would also qualify as Tier 4, since it isn't directly asserting anything, and a skilled speaker could also use this to their advantage.

It's also important to note that a speaker under a ZoT spell can attempt to say whatever they want, and the spell determines whether or not their statement is acceptable. If the spell doesn't deem that they are being misleading enough to qualify as a "deliberate lie", or if it is unable to determine whether what they are saying is true or false, then the statement is allowed. Otherwise their words don't come out and they have to try a different approach.

In actual practice, most NPCs in a game would assume that the spell is stronger than it is, so they wouldn't even try to mislead and would just spill the beans. A particularly clever NPC who knew the limitations of the spell, however, could use it to their advantage. If asked an open-ended question, they could give a response that sounds nice but is ultimately meaningless, or answer with a question. If asked a Yes or No question, they could often answer either way, unless the questioner is being very specific. For example, if you ask a seemingly straightforward question like "Is the sky blue?", I could answer either way - yes, the sky can be blue, but at night or on cloudy days it is not blue. Without conditions, the spell can't determine whether the answer is true or false, so it has to accept either a Yes or No answer.

There are plenty of other examples in this thread of how a crafty NPC could use semantics to deceive while under a ZoT. Now, as I said, most NPCs would be unlikely to know how the spell works well enough to even try lying, but in a setting where magic is at least somewhat common, it's not at all inconceivable that certain NPCs, especially criminals, politicians, merchants, nobles and any others that had resources at stake and/or reputations to protect, might have trained in techniques to mislead while under the effects of a Zone of Truth.

So, can Zone of Truth trivialize an encounter? The answer Doesn't fall into either Tier 1 or 3. Tier 2 Response: Yes and No. Tier 4 Response: Really, any spell or ability can trivialize an encounter with the right application of leverage to the party's tactical strengths, can't it?

bid

2016-07-22, 11:00 PM

In which case you never have to roll for deception?
Rolling for deception is searching for loopholes.

The player might say "I like banana", but the character will say whatever matches his result. A good deception roll will beat ZoT because you found a way around the question.

Telok

2016-07-23, 01:16 AM

I would note that there are quite a lot of 20th century assumptions going on here. Medieval and faux-Medieval would be much more likely to see a lord, an appointed official, or a board of officials rather than any modern idea of a jury or citizens. Indeed the historical process of extracting information and confessions was torture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal) until realtively recently. So having a session of truth finding would be much more likely to involve casters in an official jurisprudence capacity, a torturer, and a dungeon than any congregation on the steps of the courthouse.

Interesting reading on this includes Celebrated Crimes (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2760) by Alexandre Dumas, covering a number of instances of Medieval and early Renassiance 'justice'.

Zalabim

2016-07-23, 04:04 AM

To determine the veracity of your soothsayer, you just need to use multiple soothsayers standing in overlapping Zones of Truth so that you'd have to coerce them all in order to get away with it.

Also maybe inaccurate, but I've heard that by torturing multiple prisoners and comparing the information they provide you can increase the certainty whether what you've been told is true. So you interrogate one goblin and get pit trap. Sure, fine. You interrogate 20 goblins and you get 10 pit trap, 2 deadfall trap, 2 dart shower trap, 2 scything blades trap, and 4 no trap for the answers, then you can expect that it's a pit trap. Zone of Truth lets you skip the other 19 goblins. Really, it's for their own good.

Also side question. If someone completely believes something is the truth (like their uncle died of drinking)
but it is in fact a lie (He was stabbed during poker and they lied to his grandson about how he died).

I would wager failing a Zone of Truth he would say his Uncle died of drinking because that is what the PERSON believes.

Do you guys agree?

I agree. I was thinking about this too. For my example, there's a cult hiding in town. They all receive their instructions from the innkeeper by way of one of his sons delivering notes to and from the leader. The innkeeper has no idea any of this is happening in his name. But everyone believes that he's the real leader of the cult, except one or more of his sons who actually write the leader's notes.

How on earth do you figure that?

You have a henchman. He has information you need. Information that can save you from the bbeg.

Without zone of truth he lies to you. You believe him because he is a good lier and fall into a trap. You have the choice then if you actually believe him or think that he spoke the truth but decide not to act on it. It gives the players choice and agency.

With zone of truth he doesn't lie to you. There is no risk of the trap. It's binary he lies and you know. He tells the truth and you know.

Either situation he is at your mercy. Either situation you can kill him if he evades your questions. Only without zone of truth it becomes a much more interesting scenario which could go either way. The players may believe he just turned on his master to save his own skin and fall for his lies. Or succeed at rolls. Or anything that isn't a binary you make saves till you fail. Because the dice rolling in zone of truth let's be honest is hogwash and almost pointless in most scenarios

It's not binary. There are three possible results. You get useful information. You get no useful information. You get harmful information. If you use Zone of Truth, he can't lie to you, but you can still get no useful information. That's assuming he actually knows useful information. If the BBEG's minion has only been told lies about his boss, there's no possibility of getting useful information, and Zone of Truth may convince you that his true information is useful. He doesn't know the boss isn't deathly allergic to mayo.

wunderkid

2016-07-23, 04:57 AM

Rolling for deception is searching for loopholes.

The player might say "I like banana", but the character will say whatever matches his result. A good deception roll will beat ZoT because you found a way around the question.

Except the answer was yes or no. I don't care how well you roll on deception if someone asks you is your name bob? Only replying with yes or no doesn't give you a loophole. (Because the response you quoted from me was because someone claimed you could say 'no I didn't kill bob the knife did'. As a general rule for deception yes you're correct that's what it is there for to show your character is good at lying even if you are not.)

wunderkid

2016-07-23, 05:01 AM

It's not binary. There are three possible results. You get useful information. You get no useful information. You get harmful information. If you use Zone of Truth, he can't lie to you, but you can still get no useful information. That's assuming he actually knows useful information. If the BBEG's minion has only been told lies about his boss, there's no possibility of getting useful information, and Zone of Truth may convince you that his true information is useful. He doesn't know the boss isn't deathly allergic to mayo.

That still doesn't change that without zone of truth you have no idea if the information you get is reliable at all. There is always that 'is he or isn't he telling us the truth' irrespective of how accurate or useful that truth is. ZoT eliminates this. And while a generic henchman is unlikely to know a lot the BBEGs right hand man or captain is likely to have valuable information. So your example is based on the information held rather than zone of truth itself.

bid

2016-07-23, 09:24 AM

Except the answer was yes or no.
If I answer yes, could it somehow be true?
Rolls 20: you've heard of such a case, you can mislead them.
Or it's merely that your character didn't play all those "2 guards" puzzles and didn't quite ask the right question.

I'm not even going to touch the "you must answer yes or no" restriction, it's such a contrieved fantasy.

wunderkid

2016-07-23, 09:52 AM

If I answer yes, could it somehow be true?
Rolls 20: you've heard of such a case, you can mislead them.
Or it's merely that your character didn't play all those "2 guards" puzzles and didn't quite ask the right question.

I'm not even going to touch the "you must answer yes or no" restriction, it's such a contrieved fantasy.

I am firmly against the idea that your roll some makes my character an idiot who can't ask the right questions? I don't care how good you are if I have thought it through and have the right questions and you can only respond yes or no.

And you can follow up every question by stating your intention of the question/asking the same question in a different way, followed with a did you answer in accordance with my intentions of the question?

If they are that good at finding ways to hide the intention of their statements then they are that good at knowing what your intentions of the question are, so their own skill undoes them.

Yes he rolls a 20. He knows an edge case. He knows exactly what you mean and have asked for and somehow works around it (I still don't like this logic one bit by the way it opens a huge can of worms for 'well my character has heard that killing someone is legal somewhere so I'm not lying when I say I didn't break any laws by stabbing him in the face 20 times with a spork'). You ask if that last answer was truthful with regards to my intention when asking the question. No edge case can get around that except the person being stupid enough to not know the intent of the question (which by your argument is not the case and if he was that stupid he wouldn't have the edge case in the first place and so in either situation that follow up question works)

Also contrived fantasy? I really don't see what you're getting at. It's the only logical way to make someone answer. And if they are answering your questions already without torture then a stipulation of yes or no isn't a big deal.

Mellack

2016-07-23, 11:08 AM

georgie_leech

2016-07-23, 11:30 AM

There is no way they can know your intentions with a question. They might be able to make a good guess, but without mind-reading powers they cannot know. There is no way for them to answer that question and I would say it would void the ZoT.

Alternatively, 'I don't understand your intention.' *explanation* 'Oh, yes (I understand now)'

wunderkid

2016-07-23, 12:05 PM

There is no way they can know your intentions with a question. They might be able to make a good guess, but without mind-reading powers they cannot know. There is no way for them to answer that question and I would say it would void the ZoT.

Yes they can...

Unless you are hiding your intent. If you are speaking plainly. You know I'm investigating the death of Bob. And asking you questions to determine your level of involvement. Any answer you give that attempts to mislead me into thinking you had nothing to do with bobs death is acting against the intent of my questions.

That's just simple logic. Obviously if I am hiding my intent then (which I'm not as I clearly said 'state your intent then ask this') then the party being questioned understands what you are after and if they are being misleading. The better they are at misleading the better they understand your intent in order to divert it to their gain.

JakOfAllTirades

2016-07-23, 12:19 PM

Another thing about Zone of Truth: it doesn't compel the subject to answer questions in a language the caster can speak.

Z3ro

2016-07-23, 12:21 PM

Unless you are hiding your intent. If you are speaking plainly. You know I'm investigating the death of Bob. And asking you questions to determine your level of involvement. Any answer you give that attempts to mislead me into thinking you had nothing to do with bobs death is acting against the intent of my questions.

This idea that you can corner a person by asking about their intentions is just fallacious. Intentions are nebulous things that have no concrete definition.

There's actually a great example of why this spell doesn't work in one of R. A. Salvatore's Drizzt books. Jarlaxle is being questioned by a high priestess using the spell. She asks him if any of his men found something she was looking for; Jarlaxle honestly says no (it was Entriri who found it, who was a prisoner, not his man, at the time). Now, let's say she asked the followup intention question; did you intend to deceive me?

That really depends on his mental state, right? He might think to himself "I didn't intend to deceive anyone; I answered your (poorly phrased) question honestly". It's not his fault she asked the question poorly.

Now sure, you might be able to conceive of a scenario whereby your question is so perfectly formed, it can't possibly be misunderstood or deceptively answered. The problem is that, in that case, you have to already have so much information about the situation that the questions are a formality.

Mellack

2016-07-23, 12:34 PM

Yes they can...

Unless you are hiding your intent. If you are speaking plainly. You know I'm investigating the death of Bob. And asking you questions to determine your level of involvement. Any answer you give that attempts to mislead me into thinking you had nothing to do with bobs death is acting against the intent of my questions.

That's just simple logic. Obviously if I am hiding my intent then (which I'm not as I clearly said 'state your intent then ask this') then the party being questioned understands what you are after and if they are being misleading. The better they are at misleading the better they understand your intent in order to divert it to their gain.

No, there is no way to KNOW what is in somebodies mind without mind reading. They might be able to make a guess, perhaps a very good guess, but they cannot know it. They cannot definitely say if they are going against your intention since there is no way they can definitively know your intention. So again, you need to rephrase the question, asking something more like are they going against what they believe your intention is. But that give them more power in they might be able to come up with a different interpretation of your intentions. Are you starting to see how hard it is to ask a fool-proof question? This is why contracts are so long and complex.

wunderkid

2016-07-23, 04:05 PM

No, there is no way to KNOW what is in somebodies mind without mind reading. They might be able to make a guess, perhaps a very good guess, but they cannot know it. They cannot definitely say if they are going against your intention since there is no way they can definitively know your intention. So again, you need to rephrase the question, asking something more like are they going against what they believe your intention is. But that give them more power in they might be able to come up with a different interpretation of your intentions. Are you starting to see how hard it is to ask a fool-proof question? This is why contracts are so long and complex.

You know someone's intention to a level of reasonable doubt. Otherwise you're treading on INCREDIBLY rules lawyery territory whereby anything any everything you can possibly say would be both truthful and untruthful thereby making the spell something that doesn't actually work. Because you can not definitly say that something is the truth. Sure you stabbed some guy who looked like bob. Sounded like him. Knew all of his secrets but you can't KNOW that it was actually bob... see how rediculous taking things to that level of literisation is? And simply the fact you have to do that is more than proof enough of how effective the spell is when you're not playing with a hyper rules lawyer.

If I ask you 'do you want to get a cup of coffee?'

You would understand my intent to mean I would like to go with you and get a cup of coffee somewhere.

You saying yes in this social scenario would be an agreement to my intent.

You could have meant 'yes I want to go get a cup of coffee but not with you I want to go on my own some other time'. But that would be hiding your intent because you know that I would take a yes response as meaning you understood my intent and agreed with it.

wunderkid

2016-07-23, 04:09 PM

This idea that you can corner a person by asking about their intentions is just fallacious. Intentions are nebulous things that have no concrete definition.

There's actually a great example of why this spell doesn't work in one of R. A. Salvatore's Drizzt books. Jarlaxle is being questioned by a high priestess using the spell. She asks him if any of his men found something she was looking for; Jarlaxle honestly says no (it was Entriri who found it, who was a prisoner, not his man, at the time). Now, let's say she asked the followup intention question; did you intend to deceive me?

That really depends on his mental state, right? He might think to himself "I didn't intend to deceive anyone; I answered your (poorly phrased) question honestly". It's not his fault she asked the question poorly.

Now sure, you might be able to conceive of a scenario whereby your question is so perfectly formed, it can't possibly be misunderstood or deceptively answered. The problem is that, in that case, you have to already have so much information about the situation that the questions are a formality.

The fact he can come to the conclusion where he can say 'no' in response to that question while under a zone of truth shows he understood her intent. Yes she did word it poorly. He noticed the poor wording and that it wasnt one of 'his men' (although arguably a prisoner is under his responsibility and therefore his man) and monopolised on that poor wording with full understanding.

Renen

2016-07-23, 04:34 PM

Trial where zone of truth is used? The individuals are asked a series of questions, each repeated a few times not necessarily in succession. They are allowed to only give certain types of answers (like yes, no, perhaps a few more things). If they try to stall, they are killed immediately, because if you are stalling in a zone of truth, its because your answer would implicate you, and thus you are guilty.

RickAllison

2016-07-23, 04:46 PM

You know someone's intention to a level of reasonable doubt. Otherwise you're treading on INCREDIBLY rules lawyery territory whereby anything any everything you can possibly say would be both truthful and untruthful thereby making the spell something that doesn't actually work. Because you can not definitly say that something is the truth. Sure you stabbed some guy who looked like bob. Sounded like him. Knew all of his secrets but you can't KNOW that it was actually bob... see how rediculous taking things to that level of literisation is? And simply the fact you have to do that is more than proof enough of how effective the spell is when you're not playing with a hyper rules lawyer.

If I ask you 'do you want to get a cup of coffee?'

You would understand my intent to mean I would like to go with you and get a cup of coffee somewhere.

You saying yes in this social scenario would be an agreement to my intent.

You could have meant 'yes I want to go get a cup of coffee but not with you I want to go on my own some other time'. But that would be hiding your intent because you know that I would take a yes response as meaning you understood my intent and agreed with it.

You should remember that the text of the spell indicates that one cannot lie, but there is no actual compulsion to tell the truth.

"This is the Zone of Truth. Now, tell the court that you did kill this man."
"I did so no more than you. [Deflecting the question until he isn't bound by the ZoT] You seemed enemies with him, you had him killed, didn't you?!" [The "seemed" verb precludes it from being false. It is an opinion of how it looked, which is fine unless the two acted like excellent friends. The reverse accusation cannot be false, it is a question.]
"Answer the question, yes or no."
"How could I kill him when you must have? I have to tell the truth."

wunderkid

2016-07-23, 05:03 PM

You should remember that the text of the spell indicates that one cannot lie, but there is no actual compulsion to tell the truth.

"This is the Zone of Truth. Now, tell the court that you did kill this man."
"I did so no more than you. [Deflecting the question until he isn't bound by the ZoT] You seemed enemies with him, you had him killed, didn't you?!" [The "seemed" verb precludes it from being false. It is an opinion of how it looked, which is fine unless the two acted like excellent friends. The reverse accusation cannot be false, it is a question.]
"Answer the question, yes or no."
"How could I kill him when you must have? I have to tell the truth."

And you should remember that the caster knows if the person has or hasn't passed that save. And is being blindingly obvious that he is stalling. And is not being used in a court of law but is being used by a group of adventurers with sharp pointy metal things and short hair triggers.

I am NOT saying the spell is infallible. I am NOT saying it's broken. I AM saying it's powerful in the situations that you can make use of it.

With 10 minute duration and knowledge of if they pass or fail you have incredible leeway with the spell. And if they do stall it's just as obvious as them lying. In none of the examples given so far where the person is stalling is it not unbelievably obvious (to the caster at the very least) exactly what he is doing. And in the era of D&D and for most adventures that is more proof then they ever normally get.

2+2=7 right? It's a question so it can't be false?

RickAllison

2016-07-23, 06:53 PM

And you should remember that the caster knows if the person has or hasn't passed that save. And is being blindingly obvious that he is stalling. And is not being used in a court of law but is being used by a group of adventurers with sharp pointy metal things and short hair triggers.

I am NOT saying the spell is infallible. I am NOT saying it's broken. I AM saying it's powerful in the situations that you can make use of it.

With 10 minute duration and knowledge of if they pass or fail you have incredible leeway with the spell. And if they do stall it's just as obvious as them lying. In none of the examples given so far where the person is stalling is it not unbelievably obvious (to the caster at the very least) exactly what he is doing. And in the era of D&D and for most adventures that is more proof then they ever normally get.

2+2=7 right? It's a question so it can't be false?

No, the question "2+2=7, right?" cannot be a deliberate lie because it is enquiring whether the statement is correct. Now, there are loaded questions ("How long have you been beating your wife?") that are fallacies, but they aren't lies in the sense of what would be prohibited. "2+2=7, right?" cannot be a lie, but "Yes, 2+2=7" would be a lie if there wasn't some extraordinary circumstance (doesn't know math, is thinking of some complex reason for it to be so, is reflexively answering without actually considering the problem).

As has been pointed out, any time when you have someone at your mercy like that is no longer an encounter. It may help to solve a future encounter, but it doesn't trivialize anything (unless the goblin happens to tell you that some vents bypass the traps entirely, then it does trivialize the trap encounter).

Mellack

2016-07-23, 11:35 PM

If I ask you 'do you want to get a cup of coffee?'

You would understand my intent to mean I would like to go with you and get a cup of coffee somewhere.

You saying yes in this social scenario would be an agreement to my intent.

Oddly enough, when I read that I did not picture it as an invitation to get coffee with someone else. I read it as a question about whether I would like some coffee at this moment. You might think I am saying that to make a point, but I really am not. Probably because I am at my computer and not in a more social setting. Goes to show that what is obvious to one person is not always obvious to another.

wunderkid

2016-07-24, 09:58 AM

Oddly enough, when I read that I did not picture it as an invitation to get coffee with someone else. I read it as a question about whether I would like some coffee at this moment. You might think I am saying that to make a point, but I really am not. Probably because I am at my computer and not in a more social setting. Goes to show that what is obvious to one person is not always obvious to another.

That I must say is hogwash. If your friend texts you do you want to do the cinema or emails you. You don't suddenly infer a different meaning because you're behind your computer screen. If you completely ignore the context of the situation then yes perhaps maybe if you were born without any idea of social convention would you interpret it as me for some reason asking you if you wanted to go and get some coffee on your own in your house with zero relevance or impact surrounding me. But as I doubt that's the case I'm calling you out on hogwash.

Mellack

2016-07-24, 10:33 AM

That I must say is hogwash. If your friend texts you do you want to do the cinema or emails you. You don't suddenly infer a different meaning because you're behind your computer screen. If you completely ignore the context of the situation then yes perhaps maybe if you were born without any idea of social convention would you interpret it as me for some reason asking you if you wanted to go and get some coffee on your own in your house with zero relevance or impact surrounding me. But as I doubt that's the case I'm calling you out on hogwash.

Believe what you will, but context makes all the difference, and you just throwing out the phrase had no context. If it were 5 PM and a co-worker asked that, it would probably mean going out (although we would generally use the phrase Go and get a cup of coffee.) If it is 9 AM and we both just arrived at work, I think they are asking if I want some coffee right now.
Either way, this discussion seems to have run its course. Play how you will and enjoy your game.

RickAllison

2016-07-24, 11:07 AM

Context is very important for questions! Take your example of the coffee. If a cutie that I liked or a good friend asked me that, I would think it was an invitation to go and grab a cup. If it was a boss or someone else in a position of power, it could well be an excuse to ask me to get them some while I was at it. If it was someone who I knew was a jerk (and who hadn't made any indications they were trying to change), I would assume they were going to make a crack about me in response to me saying "Yes."

Basically, while we can assume someone's intentions, we cannot be sure. In fact, someone who failed their save in a ZoT wouldn't be able to say "I know your intentions," because they can't know. They can guess, they can assume, but they can't know.

georgie_leech

2016-07-24, 11:10 AM

RickAllison

2016-07-24, 11:27 AM

Quibble, given that we've established that ZoT works on a given individual's knowledge and not some universal truth value, they just might be able to say that. People are pretty good at thinking they 'know' things that they assume :smallamused:

Ahhhh, yes. This is why Modify Memory absolutely destroys any justice system relying on ZoT. Modify their memories so instead of seeing the guilty person leaving the room, they saw a given influential person leave. Even if the evidence would point against it, ZoT verifies that this is the truth!

wunderkid

2016-07-24, 12:20 PM

Ahhhh, yes. This is why Modify Memory absolutely destroys any justice system relying on ZoT. Modify their memories so instead of seeing the guilty person leaving the room, they saw a given influential person leave. Even if the evidence would point against it, ZoT verifies that this is the truth!

Yes modify memory is a terrific spell to get around ZoT, it is however a 5th level spell, and also a spell in the first place which is kind of the point that spells are amazing vs what a Mundane person is capable of.

Plus remove curse a third level spell undoes modify memory completely which is kinda lame but does allow it to remain as a justice tool.

bid

2016-07-24, 12:20 PM

If they are that good at finding ways to hide the intention of their statements then they are that good at knowing what your intentions of the question are, so their own skill undoes them.
He means one of these 3 things, I can use the first interpretation to say yes and the last to say no. Oh how often I've played this game when a friend asked a stupid question.

BTW, no way I would let an inquisitor lead the question to push his hidden agenda. Any politically savvy adversary won't let you have your power trip fantasy.

ruy343

2016-07-25, 12:08 PM

Tanarii

2016-07-25, 04:19 PM

Oddly enough, when I read that I did not picture it as an invitation to get coffee with someone else. I read it as a question about whether I would like some coffee at this moment.I thought the same thing when I read that post. My first instinct was to read it as a question about if I wanted to get myself some coffee, without any assumption of the person asking me the question accompanying me. "Do you want to get a cup of coffee" is the perfect example of something that can be interpreted multiple ways and still be true. As well as being contextual. If I was asked by a friend while we were already out somewhere, I'd be less likely to take the question at face value of being about my personal want.

Cybren

2016-07-25, 04:45 PM

Returning to the original topic of the thread...

I think that the biggest thing that a DM can do to overcome the Zone of Truth spell with an unwilling prisoner is to not say anything at all. Although, yes, it is very powerful when your opponents play by the rules, the NPCs don't have to play by the rules. have them flip off the characters and walk away, cursing their names for using such an invasive spell. Have the tied-up hobgoblin simply spit in the characters' faces, and endure the 10 minute duration. Maybe even have an NPC under the effect of the Geas spell, with the conditions that they must complete their quest and reveal nothing about it to anyone, else they take the damage (and die instantly). That would make for a great "this villain means business" moment when one of his minions begins to tell them about the plan, and his words are cut short bu his abrupt, Geas-related death.

I don't see refusing to speak as not playing by the rules, it's explicitly one of the rules: they are not compelled to speak or answer questions. Some have argued that that would constitute an admission of guilt, or that you could just say "if you don't answer I kill you", but the people arguing the former still don't actually get the benefit of zone of truth in that, they haven't gained any information, and the ones arguing that a court would see you as guilty ignore that D&D settings generally don't have a complex judicial system and probably wouldn't care about fair trials, and the ones that DO have modern style fair trials probably wouldn't require someone to self-incriminate. As to "answer or you die", well, great, but you're still making an intimidate check, so their response is still a result of a skill check that you could have made without wasting a second level spell slot. On top of that, if you are in a situation where you could kill the target with no repercussions, the spell isn't trivializing anything, because it's already a trivial situation

uraniumrooster

2016-07-25, 04:59 PM

"On the advice of counsel, I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question."

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-07-25, 05:57 PM

the spell isn't trivializing anything, because it's already a trivial situationThis was shown to be false upthread, but I'll make the argument more explicit. I think we agree that to make something "trivial" is to succeed without rolling. To succeed in an interrogation, you must accomplish two tasks:
1. Induce the prisoner to directly answer your questions.
2. Induce the prisoner to tell the truth.

Task 1, and only task 1, is trivial if the enemy is at your mercy. Without ZoT, accomplishing task 2 requires an insight roll, and ZoT eliminates the roll. That is a very powerful, significant use of the spell, so long as your party is morally grey enough (or has enough social capital) to accomplish Task 1.

Now, I agree with you that the scope of this powerful ability is more limited than was originally argued, but you make it seem like ZoT is useless when it is clearly quite useful.

RickAllison

2016-07-25, 06:52 PM

This was shown to be false upthread, but I'll make the argument more explicit. I think we agree that to make something "trivial" is to succeed without rolling. To succeed in an interrogation, you must accomplish two tasks:
1. Induce the prisoner to directly answer your questions.
2. Induce the prisoner to tell the truth.

Task 1, and only task 1, is trivial if the enemy is at your mercy. Without ZoT, accomplishing task 2 requires an insight roll, and ZoT eliminates the roll. That is a very powerful, significant use of the spell, so long as your party is morally grey enough (or has enough social capital) to accomplish Task 1.

Now, I agree with you that the scope of this powerful ability is more limited than was originally argued, but you make it seem like ZoT is useless when it is clearly quite useful.

He never said it was useless, he said it didn't trivialize the situation. A situation that is trivialized is such that the party can basically fast-forward (a lone goblin that is running, but the PCs are faster, climbing a rock wall when the Druid has already cast Wind Walk, etc.), whereas ZoT still requires resolving the encounter through skill checks or other methods.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-07-25, 07:07 PM

Except in the described scenario, ZoT indeed turns it into a "fast forward" situation, whereas that wouldn't be the case with only mundane methods.

Cybren

2016-07-25, 07:09 PM

He never said it was useless, he said it didn't trivialize the situation. A situation that is trivialized is such that the party can basically fast-forward (a lone goblin that is running, but the PCs are faster, climbing a rock wall when the Druid has already cast Wind Walk, etc.), whereas ZoT still requires resolving the encounter through skill checks or other methods.

Exactly, it's a tool, but it's not fool proof. Some enemies won't capitalize on the weaknesses of he spell, but those are not the sort of serious opponents that would challenge the PCs in an intrigue heavy section of an adventur. Enemies meant to specifically antagonize the PCs in a social encounter will capitalize on the flaws of the spell, and there, a non-trivial encounter, zone of truth will not trivialize anything, because you are shifting the parameters. In your favor, but not in an encounter-winning sort of way.

RickAllison

2016-07-25, 07:36 PM

Except in the described scenario, ZoT indeed turns it into a "fast forward" situation, whereas that wouldn't be the case with only mundane methods.

"The goblin refuses to speak"
"We poke him"
"He refuses to speak"

There are a lot of situations where ZoT won't fast-forward anything.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-07-25, 09:22 PM

Exactly, it's a tool, but it's not fool proof. Some enemies won't capitalize on the weaknesses of he spell, but those are not the sort of serious opponents that would challenge the PCs in an intrigue heavy section of an adventur. Enemies meant to specifically antagonize the PCs in a social encounter will capitalize on the flaws of the spell, and there, a non-trivial encounter, zone of truth will not trivialize anything, because you are shifting the parameters. In your favor, but not in an encounter-winning sort of way.
"The goblin refuses to speak"
"We poke him"
"He refuses to speak"

There are a lot of situations where ZoT won't fast-forward anything.First of all, there are plenty of times where key information exists in a person vulnerable to PC capture. Unless the PCs are dealing with some sort of paranoid fellow who checks the Evil Overlord list and makes sure his underlings know nothing except their specific orders (a strategy which has its own myriad issues), the PCs will be able to find vulnerable people with the right information.

The point Cybren was making established the idea that you could get someone to talk, i.e. accomplish Task 1 trivially with mundane means. So "what if they don't talk?" is shifting the goalposts, and the party's best tactic being poking a dude with a stick is a straw man.

But let's get down to brass tacks, since clearly the main point of contention is that task 1 is difficult. For most people, the threat of death is often enough, and the issue is stopping them from lying to you. Some people might be resolute enough to require successful intimidation or persuasion (rp+roll, non-trivial), if all you can do is talk. In this case you require two rolls to have a successful interrogation - intimidation or persuasion, and insight. So the least ZoT can do is get rid of the insight roll.

But of course, when you're talking about stereotypical murderhobo PCs, torture trivializes the first task, magic or no. The sole issue is eliciting a truthful response, which ZoT covers.

Saeviomage

2016-07-25, 11:37 PM

wunderkid

2016-07-26, 05:47 AM

My reading of the spell is that once you fail your save against it, you have to leave the circle or wait for the spell to expire before you can lie. Making a successful save on a subsequent turn doesn't let you lie.

At first I read this and went that's just being a RAW monkey. Then I went through and looked at other spells and in fact it does appear to be the case that a failed save does just set the duration. Every single spell I looked at has what happens on a failed and sucessessful save. Copied and pasted directly from the book below:

looking at hold person:
At the end of each of its turns, the target can make another Wisdom saving throw. On a success, the spell ends on the target.

Ottos dance:
As an action, a dancing creature makes a Wisdom saving throw to regain control of itself. On a successful save, the spell ends.

Ray of enfeeblement:
At the end of each of the target’s turns, it can make a Constitution saving throw against the spell. On a success, the spell ends.

Spirit guardians:
On a failed save, the creature takes 3d8 radiant damage (if you are good or neutral) or 3d8 necrotic damage (if you are evil). On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage.

Tashas laughter
At the end of each of its turns, and each time it takes damage, the target can make another Wisdom saving throw. The target has advantage on the saving throw if it’s triggered by damage. On a success, the spell ends.

Zone of truth
Until the spell ends, a creature that enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there must make a Charisma saving throw. On a failed save, a creature can’t speak a deliberate lie while in the radius.

So the only caveat for breaking ZoT is leaving the zone. Once you've failed a successful save does not appear to break the spell. While I have no doubt people will still try to argue the hell out of this that does appear to be the case. And also mitigates almost all of the being able to Fast talk by abusing the windows tactics.

And as you make that save 100 times throughout the duration (let's just say 50 so you still have time to question them) passing 50 saves in a row is mathematically highly improbable unless you pass without rolling (which would be a damn high save modifier)

Socratov

2016-07-26, 06:51 AM

The problem with ZoT is that the spell is not absolute, nor is the spell continuous.

also, note the description:

You create a magical zone that guards against deception in a 15-foot-radius sphere centered on a point of your choice within range. Until the spell ends, a creature that enters the spell’s area for the first time on turn or starts its turn there must make a Charisma saving throw. On a failed save, a creature can’t speak a deliberate lie while in the radius. you know whether each creature succeeds or fails on its saving throw.

An affected creature is aware of the spell and can thus avoid answering questions to which it would normally respond with a lie. Such a creature can be evasive in its answers as long as it remains within the boundaries of the truth. (bolding mine)

So before we get ahead of ourselves:

the spell never goes 'ping' to signal a lie. If you fail your save, you just can't tell a deliberate lie. nothing more, nothing less
the caster is aware of people passing or failing their saves.
the person affected knows he is aware of the spell
as long as you tell some truth you're okay to say it

Referring to that, we can infer that deliberate means that you can't say things that you know are completely false.

On the other hand, as long as you aren't deliberately telling lies you are in the clear. You are even expressly allowed to be evasive and twisty with words. If you were a decent conman you'd do everything to escape the effect, and yet fail the examination, but if you were a truly great conman you'd fully submit to the effect and spin yarn, knit it and pull the wool, over the court's eyes.

As long as you are speaking, and haven't passed the save, what you tell must have some truth in it, at least according to you.

wunderkid

2016-07-26, 12:27 PM

The problem with ZoT is that the spell is not absolute, nor is the spell continuous.

also, note the description:

(bolding mine)

So before we get ahead of ourselves:

the spell never goes 'ping' to signal a lie. If you fail your save, you just can't tell a deliberate lie. nothing more, nothing less
the caster is aware of people passing or failing their saves.
the person affected knows he is aware of the spell
as long as you tell some truth you're okay to say it

Referring to that, we can infer that deliberate means that you can't say things that you know are completely false.

On the other hand, as long as you aren't deliberately telling lies you are in the clear. You are even expressly allowed to be evasive and twisty with words. If you were a decent conman you'd do everything to escape the effect, and yet fail the examination, but if you were a truly great conman you'd fully submit to the effect and spin yarn, knit it and pull the wool, over the court's eyes.

As long as you are speaking, and haven't passed the save, what you tell must have some truth in it, at least according to you.

Which is precisely why whenever I have used it I have made the subject answer yes or no. While as people have pointed out that is not infallible on its own. Assuming the person being questioned has any idea at all what context is asking the follow up of was your last response trying to mislead me then it covers it. Because if they did try to mislead you (and they know if they were misleading you or not as that is a conscious decision to do so) then saying 'no' would be a deliberate lie.

Which of course people respond with 'well you can't force them to answer yes or no' except in reality if I went to anyone started asking questions and breaking fingers if they refused, they would start answering pretty quickly. Sure that doesn't wash modern day as its torture and whatnot but as adventurers? In a medieval period? And assuming you're not good allignment or know the subject is evil.

Also the spell as per the text is continous. Every other spell in the game that I've read tells you that a successful save ends the effect. ZoT has the following conditions:
Standing within the zone prompts a save.
Failing the save means they can't lie as long as they stay within the zone.
Succeeding the save does nothing except holding off the effect assuming you haven't already hit the 'fail' parameter.

ZX6Rob

2016-07-26, 01:06 PM

Okay. So.

If the following conditions are true:

You have an enemy completely at your mercy with no chance of escape
You wish to extract information from said enemy
The information you need is of a form such that it can be sufficiently gleaned via the use of "yes" or "no" answers to direct questions
You are willing and able to resort to violence or physical punishment visited upon a helpless prisoner in order to force them to answer using very specific language ("yes" or "no"), as well as to prevent them from avoiding answering you entirely
Your party members are also of a similar bent and have no moral objection to your proposed methods OR you are able to convince them to leave you alone with the prisoner and ensure that they will not discover the brutality of your interrogation techniques
You have available to you a second-level spell slot with which to cast Zone of Truth
You are sufficiently protected for the duration of the spell from counterattack by any possible allies of the enemy in question
The length of your interrogation of the enemy does not exceed the maximum time limit imposed by the spell
You manage not to kill the prisoner by accident in the process of enforcing your "yes" or "no" answers via force

Then yes, Zone of Truth does, indeed, more-or-less guarantee you accurate information.

But there are loads of other situations in which it can be beaten or outwitted, situations in which adventurers might find themselves. Public trials, for instance -- an example that's come up more than once here. The interaction described above is hardly the only time when you may wish to have some magical means of divining the truth from someone who has an incentive to hide it from you.

Zone of Truth is really, really good in situations for which it's the right tool, and kind of crummy in situations where it isn't (tautologically enough). Knock is really, really good in situations where you don't have a Rogue, noise isn't a problem, and the only thing standing between you and a thing you want is a high-quality, mundane lock. It's a crummy spell if you're trying to silently sneak into a locked room as guards prowl the hallways on literally the other side of the wall. Meteor Swarm is really, really good when there's a guy standing over there with his stupid, dumb face, you don't want him to be doing that (or anything, really) any more, and collateral damage is not even remotely a concern. Despite its raw killing power, though, that spell is all but useless for a precision assassination of someone who is currently using a hostage as a human shield. There's gonna' be some unintended splash damage on that one.

So, everybody wins? Nobody does? I'm losing track of the actual argument here. Spells are good, except when they're not, right?

Socratov

2016-07-26, 04:13 PM

Which is precisely why whenever I have used it I have made the subject answer yes or no. While as people have pointed out that is not infallible on its own. Assuming the person being questioned has any idea at all what context is asking the follow up of was your last response trying to mislead me then it covers it. Because if they did try to mislead you (and they know if they were misleading you or not as that is a conscious decision to do so) then saying 'no' would be a deliberate lie.

Which of course people respond with 'well you can't force them to answer yes or no' except in reality if I went to anyone started asking questions and breaking fingers if they refused, they would start answering pretty quickly. Sure that doesn't wash modern day as its torture and whatnot but as adventurers? In a medieval period? And assuming you're not good allignment or know the subject is evil.
except that strictly speaking using only yes or no might induce a double falsehood. Often times the truth is not black/white, but in shades of grey. Though a sufficiently evil character won't care and break fingers regardless...

Also the spell as per the text is continous. Every other spell in the game that I've read tells you that a successful save ends the effect.
, no in other cases it ends the spell, passing ZoT does not end the spell, it only ends when the duration taps out or when the caster loses concentratiopn/ends concentration

ZoT has the following conditions:
Standing within the zone prompts a save.
Failing the save means they can't lie as long as they stay within the zone.
Succeeding the save does nothing except holding off the effect assuming you haven't already hit the 'fail' parameter.
No,
[/list]
starting your turn within the zone and/or moving into the zone will prompt a charisma save
failing the save means you can't speak a blatant lie.
The caster knows whether you pass or fail a save
go back to step 1
[/list]

I'd rule that passing the save would suspend the no blatant lies effect. But in all honesty it's into the hands of the DM since no real rules precedent exists.

Okay. So.

If the following conditions are true:

You have an enemy completely at your mercy with no chance of escape
You wish to extract information from said enemy
The information you need is of a form such that it can be sufficiently gleaned via the use of "yes" or "no" answers to direct questions
You are willing and able to resort to violence or physical punishment visited upon a helpless prisoner in order to force them to answer using very specific language ("yes" or "no"), as well as to prevent them from avoiding answering you entirely
Your party members are also of a similar bent and have no moral objection to your proposed methods OR you are able to convince them to leave you alone with the prisoner and ensure that they will not discover the brutality of your interrogation techniques
You have available to you a second-level spell slot with which to cast Zone of Truth
You are sufficiently protected for the duration of the spell from counterattack by any possible allies of the enemy in question
The length of your interrogation of the enemy does not exceed the maximum time limit imposed by the spell
You manage not to kill the prisoner by accident in the process of enforcing your "yes" or "no" answers via force

Then yes, Zone of Truth does, indeed, more-or-less guarantee you accurate information.
depends on what you ask, how you ask it and how clever the person it's used on is

But there are loads of other situations in which it can be beaten or outwitted, situations in which adventurers might find themselves. Public trials, for instance -- an example that's come up more than once here. The interaction described above is hardly the only time when you may wish to have some magical means of divining the truth from someone who has an incentive to hide it from you.

Zone of Truth is really, really good in situations for which it's the right tool, and kind of crummy in situations where it isn't (tautologically enough). Knock is really, really good in situations where you don't have a Rogue, noise isn't a problem, and the only thing standing between you and a thing you want is a high-quality, mundane lock. It's a crummy spell if you're trying to silently sneak into a locked room as guards prowl the hallways on literally the other side of the wall. Meteor Swarm is really, really good when there's a guy standing over there with his stupid, dumb face, you don't want him to be doing that (or anything, really) any more, and collateral damage is not even remotely a concern. Despite its raw killing power, though, that spell is all but useless for a precision assassination of someone who is currently using a hostage as a human shield. There's gonna' be some unintended splash damage on that one.

So, everybody wins? Nobody does? I'm losing track of the actual argument here. Spells are good, except when they're not, right?
Personally I'd use Geas and give the target the taboo of lies with some modified effect (like knocked out or lies coming out like bubbles), or use the curse spell thanks to its creative uses clause. Though they both, like ZoT, require a DM who is willing to work with the party instead of against. I also think that if you have a DM vs. Party stand-off that neither party will be satisfied with the results. But I digress.

ZX6Rob

2016-07-26, 04:44 PM

depends on what you ask, how you ask it and how clever the person it's used on is
Well, sure -- that's the point that I was making in the next paragraph. If you are dealing with someone who isn't clever enough to figure out how to twist his words, then yeah, the spell works spot-on (provided, of course, the laundry list of other requirements is met). In any other situation, it's a useful tool for helping you discern the truth, but not a guarantee of anything. The spell is a tool, just like any other, and sometimes it's just the right one for the job, sometimes it's better than nothing but still might not work, and sometimes, it's just not going to get you what you want.

Personally I'd use Geas and give the target the taboo of lies with some modified effect (like knocked out or lies coming out like bubbles), or use the curse spell thanks to its creative uses clause. Though they both, like ZoT, require a DM who is willing to work with the party instead of against. I also think that if you have a DM vs. Party stand-off that neither party will be satisfied with the results. But I digress.
Zone of Truth, Geas, and other spells of that ilk (spells which have broad effects on a creature's behavior) are honestly some of the hardest to deal with in the game, both for DMs and for players. In an adversarial, players-versus-DM kind of environment, or in a tightly-controlled, narratively-driven environment, you may well do better just rolling up a blaster Sorcerer and bombing kobolds in caves. In an environment where the DM is willing to let the players have some latitude with these spells and open up the game a bit, they can sometimes be used to great effect. They can also sometimes backfire on the players in cool and unexpected ways, or end up with an unintended consequence that moves the plot forward, which is cool, too!

Sigreid

2016-07-26, 05:06 PM

The one thing I got out of this whole thread is that I'm glad the people on this forum are not in charge of my country. I like having it documented that you have a right to avoid self incrimination and that your using that right cannot be counted as evidence against you for legal purposes.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-07-26, 05:41 PM

You have an enemy completely at your mercy with no chance of escapeWell yeah, we've been talking about one way to use the spell.
The information you need is of a form such that it can be sufficiently gleaned via the use of "yes" or "no" answers to direct questionsNope. You just need them to answer directly, which allows for much more than yes or no.

You are willing and able to resort to violence or physical punishment visited upon a helpless prisoner in order to force them to answer using very specific language ("yes" or "no"), as well as to prevent them from avoiding answering you entirelyThat's the most guaranteed way to get someone in this situation to talk. More to the point, you face this issue with interrogation situations regardless of magical access. ZoT doesn't make the problem worse. It simply means that when you're being excessively antagonistic in getting the fellow to talk, he's still not going to lie to you.
You have available to you a second-level spell slot with which to cast Zone of Truth
You are sufficiently protected for the duration of the spell from counterattack by any possible allies of the enemy in question
The length of your interrogation of the enemy does not exceed the maximum time limit imposed by the spell
You manage not to kill the prisoner by accident in the process of enforcing your "yes" or "no" answers via forceMost of these can be answered by "you're a cleric." If a counterattack is imminent, it's probably not a good idea to be spending time interrogating a prisoner anyway.

Regarding the "public trial," you'd need rules on how to use ZoT and how people are supposed to respond, along with a local priest who is actually trusted by the community to administer it. In this case, however, it too works just fine.

The one thing I got out of this whole thread is that I'm glad the people on this forum are not in charge of my country. I like having it documented that you have a right to avoid self incrimination and that your using that right cannot be counted as evidence against you for legal purposes.It's almost like when people play D&D they're pretending like they're not bound by real-world strictures.

Regarding using higher level spells to ensure truth telling instead: If it's purely for the PC's interest in knowing something, Dominate Person is the gold standard. There's no break condition except damage in this edition; the subject will betray everything held dear to them in an instant once they fail the save.

Saeviomage

2016-07-26, 09:00 PM

I actually think that restricting your target to yes or no answers is counterproductive. It denies you the chance to find out information that you don't already know by feeling around the edge of things that are lies, and gives the target significant leeway in reconciling his answer with internal logic that you are not privy to.

For example in the prior example "I didn't harm a hair on his head" is a curious turn of phrase when "No" should suffice. The follow up is "did you cause harm to come to any part of him?", which is significantly harder to get a false negative from, but could still give you a false positive (ie - financial harm, emotional harm, indirect harm etc etc).

In short, rendering someone unable to lie gives you useful information, but doesn't guarantee that you get the truth unless the target intends to do so.

I intend to use the spell to get targets to recite oaths, and ensure that foes we don't kill are going to attempt to turn their lives around. If you get a foe to repeat after you that "I will report to the order of the hooded monks as soon as is possible for me to do so and serve them as a novice for 1 year and 1 day", you've got a pretty good idea that he's going to at least start that process.

JNAProductions

2016-07-26, 09:01 PM

LordVonDerp

2016-07-27, 05:38 AM

The spell cannot compel anyone to answer questions, so by itself it's not very useful.

fishyfishyfishy

2016-07-27, 12:14 PM

"
Truth, contrary to popular opinion, is a subjective notion. 500 years ago, people knew the truth that the world is flat. Today, we know the truth is that the world is a sphere. Imagine what the truth will be tomorrow. (I'm pretty sure that's an indirect quote from somewhere, but I don't recall where).

Men In Black, when K is recruiting J.

JackPhoenix

2016-07-31, 07:14 PM

The spell cannot compel anyone to answer questions, so by itself it's not very useful.

Yes. This is the important part. Yes or No questions would be the worst possible thing you may want from the victim of ZoT. You may ask him "Did you kill the duke?" and he can truthfully say no... because he's in fact not answering your question, but thinking "Do I want to be here?" and answering HIMSELF out loud "Nope". It's not the victim's fault you've assumed he's talking to you. He didn't deliberately lied... he just answered a question you haven't heard.

Or possibly just talking to himself, ignoring your question entirely... "Yes" or "No" aren't lies in itself. Yes yes no yes no no no... wait, you were asking something?

wunderkid

2016-08-01, 05:51 PM

Yes. This is the important part. Yes or No questions would be the worst possible thing you may want from the victim of ZoT. You may ask him "Did you kill the duke?" and he can truthfully say no... because he's in fact not answering your question, but thinking "Do I want to be here?" and answering HIMSELF out loud "Nope". It's not the victim's fault you've assumed he's talking to you. He didn't deliberately lied... he just answered a question you haven't heard.

Or possibly just talking to himself, ignoring your question entirely... "Yes" or "No" aren't lies in itself. Yes yes no yes no no no... wait, you were asking something?

Just no. So much no. If any character tried this npc or not I would flat up kill them.

Using that logic you're not lying at all ever.

"Did you kill the Duke?"

(Internally: did I have unicorn for breakfast?)

I did not,

(Int: what's another word for murder?)

Kill,

(Int: Who is an important figure who runs the town?)

The duke

(Opposite of minus?)

Plus

(The abbreviation of you are?)

You're

(What would you call to someone who commits murder?)

The killer.

Well under zone of truth he just said "I did not kill the Duke plus you're the killer" according to your logic.

That's seven shades of cheese and I would flat out kill any character who tried that so hard all of their future characters sphincters would clench and tremble in fear of the horror that has occurred.

georgie_leech

2016-08-01, 07:06 PM

Partial agreement. I'd be fine with that being the roleplaying for a successful save against the spell, willfully answering questions other than those presented.

RickAllison

2016-08-01, 07:43 PM

Oooooo, what if you have an ally with Message in the courtroom? Then, they can just send you questions secretly and you can answer those out loud! Still doesn't help if you are torturing a prisoner in a secluded shack, but it prevents the accurate use of the spell in a formal setting.

ClintACK

2016-08-01, 10:29 PM

"On the advice of counsel, I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question."

I think you'd be hard pressed to speak the word "respectfully" in that sentence while in the Zone of Truth. :)

Oooooo, what if you have an ally with Message in the courtroom? Then, they can just send you questions secretly and you can answer those out loud! Still doesn't help if you are torturing a prisoner in a secluded shack, but it prevents the accurate use of the spell in a formal setting.

Does it?

That's all kinds of cheese.

If you wanted to get away with that, you ought to at least cast Deafness on your ally first, so he can't hear the real questions. RAW the Message spell says that the target hears the message -- and specific overrules general, right?

Of course, that's even cheesier.

Socratov

2016-08-02, 08:09 AM

You know, the more I read this thread, the more I am convinced that this spell is actually unplayable by both the party and the DM. If the party uses it they will be able to circumvent a lot of searching done otherwise whcih could potentailly circumvent a large part of the quest. I can understand the DM not having fun when this happens. On the other hand, if the DM forces it upon the players it's little more then railroading as the player is literally at the DM's mercy. At that point a sham trial is just as effective and will make for a far more exciting story start.

the spell itself is not OP in the oleast, there are plenty of ways to circumvent it, but the rules aren't exactly clear on every (even indicated) way of circumvention. What's more, the spell, as is, can't be used properly wihtout modifying or DM intervention. I declare the spell broken. Not OP but broken.

Vogonjeltz

2016-08-02, 08:17 AM

Which is why the courts should have a second person running Detect Thoughts!

Do you have any idea how much money this all costs? And the caseloads would mount up at an insane rate.

I'd also think that Enchanters might really get around this sytem by mind-controlling and then wiping the memories of investigators on a routine basis.

"Being questioned by the location Inquisition or Kings Guard? You need Larry's Enchanters, we'll take the Int out of their Interrogation!"

I agree with you with just one caveat, when it comes out in actual play it can be pretty hard for a DM to come up with a truthful but misleading answer on the fly.

I would imagine that speaking entirely in non sequiturs (i.e. simply never actually speaking to the question posed) would be a good start.

example:

Direct Question: Did you murder the deceased?

Nonanswering question: If I had wanted to kill them, why would I do it in the center of town?

Direct Question: Where were you last night?

True answer which leaves out other activities: As usual, I went to sleep in my bed and woke up there in the morning.

That's a great point. The misleading question could be phrased two ways: 1) Did you mislead me or 2) Did you attempt to mislead me? For 1), as you said, how do I know if you believed me? For 2), I didn't attempt to, I did. Both answers completely truthful, and totally misleading.

And could also just be answered with an angry, "I gave the answer I gave, if you don't like it that's your problem, not mine!"

smcmike

2016-08-02, 10:41 AM

This thread is almost entirely a silly white room analysis. How about actual examples? What's the best use someone has had?

I intend to use the spell to get targets to recite oaths, and ensure that foes we don't kill are going to attempt to turn their lives around. If you get a foe to repeat after you that "I will report to the order of the hooded monks as soon as is possible for me to do so and serve them as a novice for 1 year and 1 day", you've got a pretty good idea that he's going to at least start that process.

Yeah I don't think that works at all. An oath is not actually a truth statement, and is outside what this spell does, at least by my reading.

Also, I would personally rewrite the saving throw section to reduce rolling; you pass or fail on casting or enterijg the zone, no second roll.

Cybren

2016-08-02, 11:43 AM

This thread is almost entirely a silly white room analysis. How about actual examples? What's the best use someone has had?

Yeah I don't think that works at all. An oath is not actually a truth statement, and is outside what this spell does, at least by my reading.

Also, I would personally rewrite the saving throw section to reduce rolling; you pass or fail on casting or enterijg the zone, no second roll.
The original discussion of the thread wasn't a white room analysis- it was a specific example from a specific players game, using that to argue that the spell was so powerful it trivialized encounters.

HeyBJ

2016-08-02, 11:47 AM

I've found that this spell isn't really all that useful, mostly because it doesn't actually compel the target to answer the questions. He could (and a smart DM would) just refuse to answer. The only situation that I would use it is if someone is volunteering information, and I want to make sure that they're telling the truth.

smcmike

2016-08-02, 12:07 PM

The original discussion of the thread wasn't a white room analysis- it was a specific example from a specific players game, using that to argue that the spell was so powerful it trivialized encounters.

When you say "encounters" generally, it's a white room (at least how I meant the term - I'm not trying to quibble over terminology). It looks like wunderkid did have a specific example at the top of the thread, but it was pretty light on details.

I'm looking for "this is what happened this one time in a game I played - it worked out really well because of ZoT." I might have missed some, but mostly I see people discussing hypothetical torture-the-prisoner or trial situations.

Cazero

2016-08-02, 12:46 PM

The original discussion of the thread wasn't a white room analysis- it was a specific example from a specific players game, using that to argue that the spell was so powerful it trivialized encounters.
If your "encounter" is trivialized by Zone of truth, then your "encounter" is beaten in one succesful insight check. That's like saying an ordinary locked door on it's own is an encounter. You better put some more complications on it or it's not an encounter to begin with. And if your players want to waste spell slots on not-encounters, who are you to stop them? It will only make things more interesting during the actual encounter when they realise they could really use one more Web.

Cybren

2016-08-02, 12:55 PM

RickAllison

2016-08-02, 01:03 PM

Well gee golly willickers you sure showed me! I'll never argue zone of truth trivializes encounters again.

My first instinct was picturing you as Pain from "Hercules".

"Jeepers, mister?"
"I was going for innocence."

georgie_leech

2016-08-02, 01:22 PM

My first instinct was picturing you as Pain from "Hercules".

"Jeepers, mister?"
"I was going for innocence."

Do you realise you've just made me go back and read this whole thread as if it was these two bickering with each other? Off I go...

wunderkid

2016-08-02, 01:36 PM

If your "encounter" is trivialized by Zone of truth, then your "encounter" is beaten in one succesful insight check. That's like saying an ordinary locked door on it's own is an encounter. You better put some more complications on it or it's not an encounter to begin with. And if your players want to waste spell slots on not-encounters, who are you to stop them? It will only make things more interesting during the actual encounter when they realise they could really use one more Web.

This actually made me laugh out loud xD you're comparing an insight check, which can pass or fail, and vs a competent lier (a rogue or bard with expertise) puts your odds pretty low. to zone of truth which unless they pass 100 saves will do what it says on the tin and prevent lying.

In the situation it was used in the guy was at our mercy and we were all willing to kill him already. He had attempted to take our lives previously on two occasions. So he could talk. Be tortured or die.

He had information on his boss.

A failed insight check and he would have fed us misleading information likely resulting in a PK. After all best case for him would have been lying to us and claiming credit from his boss later once we were just blood splatter.

With zone of truth, him being at our mercy, and bottom line him preferring to save his own skin (as 99% of people would who are not fanatics) it was an utterly trivial situation. If he lied or tried to weasel around questions we would kill him. No information is better than false information after all.

So the two outcomes were:

No ZoT: No information. Good or bad information which may or may not get us killed.

With ZoT: no information. Good information.

I never claimed it made every situation trivial. But the difference between good information and could be good or lethal information is a freaking mountain. Good Intel is key as almost anyone knows.

In fact as I've said several times now it was ONE example of ONE time that ONE spell made a situation trivialised. And that there are MANY better spells and other situations trivialised by spells existing. The kind of thing completely unavailable to martial characters. Not that Zone is op and broken and will beat every situation ever conceived.

Saeviomage

2016-08-02, 11:01 PM

Yeah I don't think that works at all. An oath is not actually a truth statement, and is outside what this spell does, at least by my reading.

So a target who has no intention to report to the monks ever would be able to speak the sentence "I will report to the monks as soon as possible"? This is the point where the DM is just misreading english to screw the spellcaster.

On the other end of the spectrum, I don't believe that 'yes' or 'no' or most other minimal answers to questions can be said to be lies because they aren't statements.

That means that you have to get the subject to do some rephrasing, or you can get him to repeat a statement.

Also, I would personally rewrite the saving throw section to reduce rolling; you pass or fail on casting or entering the zone, no second roll.

I think the idea is that the spell is supposed to eventually just work if your target cannot avoid it or does not wish to avoid it. I think the only reason that it allows a save at all is to reduce the effect of an ambush cast mid-sentence. If targets can just save once and ignore the spell, it's incredibly weak when compared with charm person, which is a level below.

georgie_leech

2016-08-02, 11:27 PM

So a target who has no intention to report to the monks ever would be able to speak the sentence "I will report to the monks as soon as possible"? This is the point where the DM is just misreading english to screw the spellcaster.

On the other end of the spectrum, I don't believe that 'yes' or 'no' or most other minimal answers to questions can be said to be lies because they aren't statements.

That means that you have to get the subject to do some rephrasing, or you can get him to repeat a statement.

I think the idea is that the spell is supposed to eventually just work if your target cannot avoid it or does not wish to avoid it. I think the only reason that it allows a save at all is to reduce the effect of an ambush cast mid-sentence. If targets can just save once and ignore the spell, it's incredibly weak when compared with charm person, which is a level below.

I think it's more that ZoT has no ability to enforce any Oaths given under it. In general, the point of a magical Oath or other binding magics is to keep the target motivated to accomplish whatever end was required, even after it doesn't seem as good an idea. Like, it might be perfectly true at the moment that the target intends to report to the Monks, but an hour later they could easily change their mind and go 'eh, I don't really have to go.' ZoT has no ability to keep true statements true.

tsotate

2016-08-03, 01:18 AM

So the two outcomes were:

No ZoT: No information. Good or bad information which may or may not get us killed.

With ZoT: no information. Good information.

With Detect Thoughts: Good information, no save.

Cazero

2016-08-03, 02:28 AM

This actually made me laugh out loud xD you're comparing an insight check, which can pass or fail, and vs a competent lier (a rogue or bard with expertise) puts your odds pretty low. to zone of truth which unless they pass 100 saves will do what it says on the tin and prevent lying.
Well, yes, I'm comparing a spell to skill checks. There are precedents, like Knock and Invisibility. Note how both of those are powerful enablers but don't actualy remove the need for the skills they emulate. Zone of truth is no different. For starters, it's litteraly useless if you're not in a position of strenght.

A failed insight check and he would have fed us misleading information likely resulting in a PK. After all best case for him would have been lying to us and claiming credit from his boss later once we were just blood splatter.
That's not how insight works. You, the player, are still the one to decide wether or not to trust something that was told to your character. A succesful insight check tells you that the target is not lying. A failure tells you that you don't know if the target is lying. Insight is identical to Zone of truth in that it can sometimes tell you with 100% certainty that a dude lies. Insight is also always on forever and perfectly stealthy.
But the important point is that PCs are immune to the Bluff skill. Using the Bluff skill on them will at best set a high Insight DC. The game is asymetrical like that.

In fact as I've said several times now it was ONE example of ONE time that ONE spell made a situation trivialised. And that there are MANY better spells and other situations trivialised by spells existing. The kind of thing completely unavailable to martial characters.
Considering the man was at your mercy and all, the hilariously absurd RAW of having a hundred saves per casting, and what the victim should do after meeting hostility for accidentaly passing two saves in a row, you could simply have used mundane pressure until you got several nat' 20 insight to all your answers. Just as trivial and reliable. Might take a little more time. But hey, if you were in a hurry, you wouldn't be interrogating in the first place.

smcmike

2016-08-03, 08:48 AM

So a target who has no intention to report to the monks ever would be able to speak the sentence "I will report to the monks as soon as possible"? This is the point where the DM is just misreading english to screw the spellcaster.

What is the DM misreading? There is no text in Zone of Truth forcing someone to carry out an oath.

I agree that a target who has no intention to join the monks cannot take the oath - zone of truth therefore allows you to determine whether the target is capable of forming such an intention. I'm not sure how valuable this is. Intentions are mostly worthless. I wake up every morning with all sorts of intentions. The target will wake up the next morning and say "yeah, I had an intention of joining the monks, because that's the only way I saw to live. But, really, who am I kidding? Time to get drunk and do some evil."

On the other end of the spectrum, I don't believe that 'yes' or 'no' or most other minimal answers to questions can be said to be lies because they aren't statements.

That means that you have to get the subject to do some rephrasing, or you can get him to repeat a statement.

On the other end of the spectrum, this seems like DM misreading English to screw the spellcaster to me. "Yes" and "no" aren't statements, but in context they have truth value. In special circumstances, I can imagine a target using misleading context to give the wrong answer (answering some other question), but I'd allow for an insight check or some other way for the PC's to figure out what was happening. For the average dummy NPC, though, yes/no should be true answers under this spell.

So
I think the idea is that the spell is supposed to eventually just work if your target cannot avoid it or does not wish to avoid it. I think the only reason that it allows a save at all is to reduce the effect of an ambush cast mid-sentence. If targets can just save once and ignore the spell, it's incredibly weak when compared with charm person, which is a level below.

Hmm. This is a good point.

I think it's more that ZoT has no ability to enforce any Oaths given under it. In general, the point of a magical Oath or other binding magics is to keep the target motivated to accomplish whatever end was required, even after it doesn't seem as good an idea. Like, it might be perfectly true at the moment that the target intends to report to the Monks, but an hour later they could easily change their mind and go 'eh, I don't really have to go.' ZoT has no ability to keep true statements true.

Yeah, this.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-08-03, 04:00 PM

Insight is identical to Zone of truth in that it can sometimes tell you with 100% certainty that a dude lies. Insight is also always on forever and perfectly stealthy.
But the important point is that PCs are immune to the Bluff skill. Using the Bluff skill on them will at best set a high Insight DC. The game is asymetrical like that.

Considering the man was at your mercy and all, the hilariously absurd RAW of having a hundred saves per casting, and what the victim should do after meeting hostility for accidentaly passing two saves in a row, you could simply have used mundane pressure until you got several nat' 20 insight to all your answers. Just as trivial and reliable. Might take a little more time. But hey, if you were in a hurry, you wouldn't be interrogating in the first place.Now you're the one misunderstanding how skills work. The DM makes the call as to when you get to roll insight; relying on getting to roll an indefinite number of insight checks until you hit a nat 20, and then metagaming that read over other reads, isn't going to get you very far outside of the white room. The DM is well within his rights to have you roll a single insight for the entire encounter. ZoT, on the other hand, explicitly forces truth telling, obviating the insight roll entirely. So no, PCs aren't "immune" to bluff. They're possibly immune to being deceived, if they never trust anyone they don't get an expert read on. But the difference between getting good information and potentially bad information can be significant; that's what's being obviated here.

georgie_leech

2016-08-03, 04:17 PM

Now you're the one misunderstanding how skills work. The DM makes the call as to when you get to roll insight; relying on getting to roll an indefinite number of insight checks until you hit a nat 20, and then metagaming that read over other reads, isn't going to get you very far outside of the white room. The DM is well within his rights to have you roll a single insight for the entire encounter. ZoT, on the other hand, explicitly forces truth telling, obviating the insight roll entirely. So no, PCs aren't "immune" to bluff. They're possibly immune to being deceived, if they never trust anyone they don't get an expert read on. But the difference between getting good information and potentially bad information can be significant; that's what's being obviated here.

Mind you, they're not necessarily exclusive. Depending on the situation, the target could be trying to mislead the PC's using nothing but the truth. Since that's trying to be deceptive, I'd argue that Bluff and Insight checks would be entirely appropriate.

Cazero

2016-08-03, 04:45 PM

The DM makes the call as to when you get to roll insight; relying on getting to roll an indefinite number of insight checks until you hit a nat 20, and then metagaming that read over other reads, isn't going to get you very far outside of the white room. The DM is well within his rights to have you roll a single insight for the entire encounter. ZoT, on the other hand, explicitly forces truth telling, obviating the insight roll entirely.
Unless the target pass the save. And the DM is well within his rights to have the target save only once for the entire duration because one save per round for a non-combat spell is stupid.
Now if your point is that the target is less likely to pass the save than you are likely to succeed on an insight check, it is a valid point.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-08-03, 06:31 PM

Mind you, they're not necessarily exclusive. Depending on the situation, the target could be trying to mislead the PC's using nothing but the truth. Since that's trying to be deceptive, I'd argue that Bluff and Insight checks would be entirely appropriate.As was established previously, if you can't get the target to answer direct questions in a direct fashion, you have more issues than just whether or not he's telling the truth.
Unless the target pass the save. And the DM is well within his rights to have the target save only once for the entire duration because one save per round for a non-combat spell is stupid.This is flat out wrong. ZoT explicitly calls out when saves occur. When to roll insight/deception is deliberately left up to the GM. Rulings are not the same as house rules, a distinction that increases in importance when you're talking about a system with precious little clearly written down.

Not to mention that when you get no reading, you don't know if the guy was being honest or not, whereas if someone passes the save you know they are actively resisting.

Saeviomage

2016-08-03, 06:45 PM

What is the DM misreading? There is no text in Zone of Truth forcing someone to carry out an oath.

I agree that a target who has no intention to join the monks cannot take the oath - zone of truth therefore allows you to determine whether the target is capable of forming such an intention. I'm not sure how valuable this is. Intentions are mostly worthless. I wake up every morning with all sorts of intentions. The target will wake up the next morning and say "yeah, I had an intention of joining the monks, because that's the only way I saw to live. But, really, who am I kidding? Time to get drunk and do some evil."

That's fine. I've no problem with that. ZoT absolutely doesn't enforce the oath at a later date. But it does have the ability to establish intent, and you can use it to get them to establish a pattern of past behaviour by making declarative statements about themselves. "I always keep my sworn oaths". The goal here is to give my character a reason NOT to just kill every bad guy we fight. Paladins are short on ways to accomplish that.

On the other end of the spectrum, this seems like DM misreading English to screw the spellcaster to me. "Yes" and "no" aren't statements, but in context they have truth value.

Most definitions that I've found say require lies to be statements, and as others have pointed out, the context is subjective, making isolated fragments very risky. I'd rather just tell players (and be told by my DM, or even just assume myself) "sentence fragments can't count as lies" than have to sift through that morass.

In special circumstances, I can imagine a target using misleading context to give the wrong answer (answering some other question), but I'd allow for an insight check or some other way for the PC's to figure out what was happening. For the average dummy NPC, though, yes/no should be true answers under this spell.

Oh, sure, you're going to trigger insight checks for deception even if you're obeying the letter of the spell. However passing an insight check isn't necessarily going to tell you that the guy just mislead you, merely that he's unusually happy with the answer he gave.

smcmike

2016-08-03, 06:56 PM

That's fine. I've no problem with that. ZoT absolutely doesn't enforce the oath at a later date. But it does have the ability to establish intent, and you can use it to get them to establish a pattern of past behaviour by making declarative statements about themselves. "I always keep my sworn oaths". The goal here is to give my character a reason NOT to just kill every bad guy we fight. Paladins are short on ways to accomplish that.

Maybe I'm just more cynical than you, but that still doesn't do much for me. I was about to say that most people would be unable to say that they always keep their sworn oaths, and therefore your bloodthirsty paladin is still a psychopath, but... then I thought about it a bit, and it's even less useful than I thought. To my knowledge, I've never broken a sworn oath. I can only think of three or four that I've taken in my life though, and none of them have really been tested. An oath like this taken under duress would be quite a different thing.

Cazero

2016-08-04, 02:27 AM

This is flat out wrong. ZoT explicitly calls out when saves occur. When to roll insight/deception is deliberately left up to the GM. Rulings are not the same as house rules, a distinction that increases in importance when you're talking about a system with precious little clearly written down.
So bringing a stopwatch to the game and interrupting people mid-sentence to inform them that they have to roll another save that will put a condition on what they can say and change the trust level of people listening to them is the one true way of playing D&D. One save every six seconds exactly, accept no substitutes. Replacing a stupid rule with someting that make more sense is wrong regardless of context, nevermind that is litteraly one of the things the game needs a DM for. And if the book asked you to jump off a cliff...

Not to mention that when you get no reading, you don't know if the guy was being honest or not, whereas if someone passes the save you know they are actively resisting.
So if the dude threatened with torture is not relaxed enough to deliberately fail a save against a mind probe that for all he knows could do far more harm that stopping lies, it's his own damn fault. Coming from characters who would use torture, it wouldn't surprise me that much. Coming from the player? Not the same story.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-08-04, 03:33 AM

So bringing a stopwatch to the game and interrupting people mid-sentence to inform them that they have to roll another save that will put a condition on what they can say and change the trust level of people listening to them is the one true way of playing D&D. One save every six seconds exactly, accept no substitutes. Replacing a stupid rule with someting that make more sense is wrong regardless of context, nevermind that is litteraly one of the things the game needs a DM for. And if the book asked you to jump off a cliff...Or you could not be obtuse about it and just describe the parts where the target is under the influence of the spell. But I suppose it's easier to construct a ridiculous straw man.

So if the dude threatened with torture is not relaxed enough to deliberately fail a save against a mind probe that for all he knows could do far more harm that stopping lies, it's his own damn fault. Coming from characters who would use torture, it wouldn't surprise me that much. Coming from the player? Not the same story.The consequence of an NPC not being "relaxed" enough to voluntarily fail the save isn't torturing the NPC. It's installing a new DM who won't invent nonsensical rules on the fly for the sole sake of thwarting the PCs.

Forum Explorer

2016-08-05, 04:25 AM

"Restrict your answers to 'yes' or 'no' or I'm going to start at the extremities and work my way in. Did you kill Bob?"

"I didn't ... AUGUAHRGUAHSLHGASGHSGS"

/apinkylater

"Yes."

Alternatively

"If you think I'm afraid of you, you're a fool"

(Truth)

If someone is worth interrogating, they very well may be too dangerous to casually threaten. Nah, I see it more as a paranoia spell, where cautious PCs will use it on NPCs who are willingly giving them information, like where to meet a crime boss, or if they are going to betray them or not.

Of course casting the spell could be seen as an attack, or threat at least.

wunderkid

2016-08-05, 11:11 AM

Alternatively

"If you think I'm afraid of you, you're a fool"

(Truth)

If someone is worth interrogating, they very well may be too dangerous to casually threaten. Nah, I see it more as a paranoia spell, where cautious PCs will use it on NPCs who are willingly giving them information, like where to meet a crime boss, or if they are going to betray them or not.

Of course casting the spell could be seen as an attack, or threat at least.

Alternatively

"If you think... AUGUAHRGUAHSLHGASGHSGS"

/twopinkysandaknifetothetesteslater

"Yes"

Forum Explorer

2016-08-05, 02:59 PM

Alternatively

"If you think... AUGUAHRGUAHSLHGASGHSGS"

/twopinkysandaknifetothetesteslater

"Yes"

Alternatively

/goes to take a pinky

"Alright, roll initiative."

*tough fight later*

"Seeing how you botched the interrogation, and killed a valued noble, the King has ordered your arrest in order to appease the rest of his nobility and salvage his damage reputation. What do you do?"

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-08-05, 03:42 PM

Alternatively

/goes to take a pinky

"Alright, roll initiative."

*tough fight later*

"Seeing how you botched the interrogation, and killed a valued noble, the King has ordered your arrest in order to appease the rest of his nobility and salvage his damage reputation. What do you do?"Let's go over the details in this example:

(1) The prisoner is a noble, which totally goes against the previous "captured mook" example.
(2) This man of leisure is magically able to defend himself against a bunch of professional killers, who have him at their mercy.
(3) Once the noble resists, the party has no recourse except to win a "tough" fight - with a tied up noble - and kill him, which goes against the PHB's allowance of knock-out blows.
(4) Everyone instantly knows it was the PCs who did it.

PCs probably aren't "allowed" to use special interrogation tactics against nobles, anyway, so if you've tied up a noble, you're likely already deciding to act outside of the law. This is true with or without ZoT. The recourse within the law is likely a local, well-respected priest using ZoT to induce truth from noble testimony. At that point torture is irrelevant - the only forcing required is a lack of fifth amendment protections and the priest winning any he said/she said dispute.

ClintACK

2016-08-05, 03:54 PM

PCs probably aren't "allowed" to use special interrogation tactics against nobles, anyway, so if you've tied up a noble, you're likely already deciding to act outside of the law. This is true with or without ZoT. The recourse within the law is likely a local, well-respected priest using ZoT to induce truth from noble testimony. At that point torture is irrelevant - the only forcing required is a lack of fifth amendment protections and the priest winning any he said/she said dispute.

Of course, a respected noble and a deferential priest get you right back to the priest confirming that the noble wasn't lying when he said, "I have done nothing wrong." and "This interrogation is outrageous." Neither of which was directly responsive to your questions.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-08-05, 03:57 PM

Of course, a respected noble and a deferential priest get you right back to the priest confirming that the noble wasn't lying when he said, "I have done nothing wrong." and "This interrogation is outrageous." Neither of which was directly responsive to your questions.I'm assuming the priest isn't a moron.

ClintACK

2016-08-05, 04:00 PM

I'm assuming the priest isn't a moron.

It's precisely because he isn't a moron that he knows not to offend a powerful nobleman.

Medieval justice wasn't notably equitable between paupers and princes. Heck, our own modern justice system does a terrible job when it comes to well-connected and wealthy suspects.

RickAllison

2016-08-05, 04:02 PM

I'm assuming the priest isn't a moron.

And that he isn't gullible. And that he isn't in the pocket of the noble. And that he doesn't have someone like a bishop telling him what questions to ask. And that the noble isn't blackmailing or threatening the priest.

Really, you have to make a lot of assumptions...

Which actually might be one of the things my PCs could happily do as an interrogator! Getting paid lots of moolah just to ask specific questions? Sounds like a great opportunity to prepare a second identity in a far away land and prepare to jump ship when the winds start blowing your way :smallsmile:

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-08-05, 04:09 PM

RickAllison

2016-08-05, 04:46 PM

If a well-respected local priest, charged by royal decree to lead an investigation, can't get a noble to answer a direct question in a direct fashion - and then must conclude that his evasive answers necessarily entail his innocence - all for fear of reprisal, that noble is above the law. At that point, evidence is moot, and the example has become entirely pointless. ZoT is an information-gathering spell; everyone will readily admit that it's only useful when information itself is useful.

Edit:

If the priest is this gullible then my assumption covers it.

Not all priests/churches accord to cliche corruption tropes, especially not ones that have to answer to gods who literally can stop giving magic powers when they are displeased, but if this one is, then the local law is a farce and we go back to my "nobles above the law" bit.

Regarding being threatened/blackmailed, we're talking about a noble with resources to take on a member of a powerful local church. That's the big assumption to my mind.

There is a difference between being quick to trust people and being a moron. Being gullible can be just as much having faith (something a priest has plenty of) that every person is fundamentally good and do giving them the benefit of the doubt. That seems more likely for the average priest than a heretic-hunting inquisitor who automatically assumes every defendant could be trying to deceive him. After all, who would dare lie to the gods?

I am very well aware that church corruption is an overblown phenomenon, but there is no question that it existed. This is because in medieval Europe and D&D, religion has power. In a world where many were doomed to be at the same social class because much power was hereditary, advancing through the religious hierarchy was one of the only ways to reliably advance one's social status. While the average acolyte or priest is more likely to be there to shepherd the god's flock and be content with their parish, the ambitious are going to be the ones most likely to be at the power level where either they can be bought or otherwise influence the proceedings. Finally, deities being able to shut off the tap to the deity is far less common than you would think. Unless someone directly goes against the will of the god (Amaunator, for example, who is very much about the law), they are unlikely to ever come up on the radar. For a cleric of Amaunator, accepting bribes may actually be enough to get him to come around, though it might not be if he does remain within the confines of the law (they haven't specifically outlawed bribery and he only makes the interrogation easier to evade rather than not do it at all). A follower of Eldath? I don't think that would even register to her.

And you assume that the church has to be powerful. Considering that the power of religion is divided up between the followers of various deities, this is a pretty major assumption. All it takes is one group of ruffians holding his dear niece hostage and you could well have a bought priest.

Additionally, you can get around this by involving the priest that can't be bought in the situation. I believe it was in a South or Central American drug lord case where the honorable judge recused himself because his estranged brother was the defendant's lawyer. The same interrogators who are honorable enough not to be bought or threatened should also leave when they are unable to be unbiased. Then you get the interrogator that can be bought...

smcmike

2016-08-05, 05:01 PM

Regarding being threatened/blackmailed, we're talking about a noble with resources to take on a member of a powerful local church. That's the big assumption to my mind.

It's an assumption either way. Is it possible that this spell could be used in a trial against a noble? Yes, of course, given sufficient social capital to puta noble on trial. But that's a lot of social capital, usually, and is probably a more important challenge than the interrogation itself.

In the real world, for instance, once you are on trial in a torture state, the game is already over.

Forum Explorer

2016-08-05, 05:08 PM

Let's go over the details in this example:

(1) The prisoner is a noble, which totally goes against the previous "captured mook" example.
(2) This man of leisure is magically able to defend himself against a bunch of professional killers, who have him at their mercy.
(3) Once the noble resists, the party has no recourse except to win a "tough" fight - with a tied up noble - and kill him, which goes against the PHB's allowance of knock-out blows.
(4) Everyone instantly knows it was the PCs who did it.

PCs probably aren't "allowed" to use special interrogation tactics against nobles, anyway, so if you've tied up a noble, you're likely already deciding to act outside of the law. This is true with or without ZoT. The recourse within the law is likely a local, well-respected priest using ZoT to induce truth from noble testimony. At that point torture is irrelevant - the only forcing required is a lack of fifth amendment protections and the priest winning any he said/she said dispute.

1) I consider the 'captured mook' example to be mostly pointless. Which BBEG worth his salt trusts his mooks with anything important? Yeah, you might avoid a trap or learn who the mook's immediate boss is, but you could likely get that information without burning a second level spell slot.

2) Back to the above, if the captive in question is worth interrogating, he likely has power of some sort. In D&D, that most typically refers to combat ability. And if it's anything other then a prisoner the party has personally taken captive, then that means he's able to fight back.

3) Why would he be tied up? If you already know he's guilty, then you just kill him. And the PCs don't have to win, or even be the ones to kill him. He could escape, actually be stronger then the PCs can handle (Congrats, you discovered that the nobleman was actually a Rakshasa. About 5 levels sooner then I had planned), or even kill himself because he planned on being raised from the dead.

4) Unless they are out in the wilderness, or acting as criminals, then likely there would be some official presence around. If not, then they are already guilty of kidnapping a noble, and likely on the run.

Anyways, the spell is decent at gathering intelligence, but pretty crap at actually 'proving' anything. And only decent at gathering intelligence because quite frankly, if they know anything really important, they likely have the ability to complicate using the ZoT anyways.

ClintACK

2016-08-05, 05:09 PM

The imperfection of the priest doesn't need to be that bad.

You just need to get back to the point where the priest doesn't have any way to *force* a noble to stick to the script and just answer yes-or-no. The good and respected priest is hardly going to be chopping fingers off a well-connected and possibly innocent noble.

A smart noble should be able to say things that the priest will have to confirm are not lies -- like "This is outrageous, I have done nothing wrong." And to "force" the noble to answer with "yes" or "no" requires appealing to the head of government...

You're back to the clever defendant playing to the jury, only it's a well-connected clever defendant and a jury-of-one who has to worry about offending too large a segment of his nobility.

(I still think Zone of Truth is an excellent spell -- it turns one tricky skill issue into a 100% reliable spell. Like Spider Climb or Fly does for climbing or Pass Without a Trace does for party stealth.)

But I think people are really missing the possible power of a 3rd-level party to interrogate someone. The party could have access to: Suggestion ("This will go easier if you just tell us <blah>"), Detect Thoughts, and Zone of Truth. Add a wisdom-based character with good Insight (and Guidance) and maybe Command ("Answer!"), and your ability to gather intelligence from human sources should be excellent. If you are smart about it.