DMs, how would you rule enforcing a player's vow made under a Zone of Truth?

[Man_Over_Game]

A player is under a Zone of Truth and failed the Saving Throw.

The player, while under the Zone of Truth, makes a promise to do (or not do) something in the future, and they say they intend to uphold their vow.

The player then proceeds to attempt to break the vow they made while under the Zone of Truth.

What happens?

[Sigreid]

Nothing. It would have stopped him from lying at the time but doesn't stop him from changing his mind later.

[hymer]

Nothing. It would have stopped him from lying at the time but doesn't stop him from changing his mind later.
Agreed. As DM, I would ask the player to describe what was going on inside the PC's head here. It's good to be sure you're on the same page.

[Man_Over_Game]

Nothing. It would have stopped him from lying at the time but doesn't stop him from changing his mind later.

I think that might be fair if the player had a reason to change his mind (like, say he forgotten about the vow for some reason), but the wording in the Zone of Truth could be modified to filter out future plans to break your vow ("And intend to uphold your vow to your last breath on this plane?", or something like that).

What would happen in that kind of scenario?

[Rukelnikov]

I think that might be fair if the player had a reason to change his mind (like, say he forgotten about the vow for some reason), but the wording in the Zone of Truth could be modified to filter out future plans to change your mind ("And intend to uphold your vow to your last breath on this plane?", or something like that).

People can break vows even if they meant to fulfil them initially, there's even a class for that. If the PC in question was a paladin, maybe turn him into an Oathbreaker, sides that, not much to do about it.

[Sigreid]

I think that might be fair if the player had a reason to change his mind (like, say he forgotten about the vow for some reason), but the wording in the Zone of Truth could be modified to filter out future plans to change your mind ("And intend to uphold your vow to your last breath on this plane?", or something like that).

A valid catalist for changing your mind is you are no longer under duress and have had time to think about it.

[Man_Over_Game]

People can break vows even if they meant it, there's even a class for that.

That kinda bugs me even more. That's a high level class feature that counters a spell effect that rarely comes up, duplicated by having some shady intentions (that the spell is supposed to weed out in the first place).

I guess the effect I was expecting is in the Geas spell. Oh well.

[Morvram]

A zone of truth isn't a geas - it seems like the most logical thought process if put in this situation would be "Oh, I'm going to be hurt if I don't agree to whatever the caster of the zone of truth is demanding, so I have to do it!" then, after the zone of truth is gone, immediately realizing that they're no longer bound to do it. It throws a wrinkle into the situation if the PC has reasoned that they can do this while still in the zone of truth. In that situation (if the player says "Ah, I can just promise to do so now and then fail later"), the zone of truth would simply catch their lie - rather than letting them lie and then forcing the lie to become truth.

[Brookshw]

A player is under a Zone of Truth and failed the Saving Throw.

The player, while under the Zone of Truth, makes a promise to do (or not do) something in the future.

The player then proceeds to attempt to break the vow they made while under the Zone of Truth.

What happens?

Nothing. Failing a save in the Zone of Truth only compels certain conduct within the Zone and for its duration. It does not compel future conduct or conduct other than as it prescribes (i.e., player who failed the save can't deliberately lie while within the zone).*

If you're looking to compel future conduct spells along the Geas line would be more appropriate.

*there's a bit of a fine line here in which the player should have answered truthfully as they believed was true at the time of the answer. A player who expected or intended to break the vow at the time of their answer should not have answered via a deliberate lie. However, you can't really police your players expectations and intentions and have to take a certain amount of this scenario on good faith.

[Particle_Man]

The trick is the player should have the character be honest while under the zone of truth. If the character honestly makes that vow, then it would be bad faith to immediately say “just kidding!” outside of it because it means the character was likely not being truthful initially when under the zone of truth.

Now if the character role plays over time why that vow no longer applies (like “I swore to avenge the death of my father but later I found out he was very evil and the killers simply bringing him to justice”) then that seems ok to me.

Basically, the controls should be internal. The player should have in character reasons as to why they keep or don’t keep a vow they honestly made before.

[Man_Over_Game]

A zone of truth isn't a geas - it seems like the most logical thought process if put in this situation would be "Oh, I'm going to be hurt if I don't agree to whatever the caster of the zone of truth is demanding, so I have to do it!" then, after the zone of truth is gone, immediately realizing that they're no longer bound to do it. It throws a wrinkle into the situation if the PC has reasoned that they can do this while still in the zone of truth. In that situation (if the player says "Ah, I can just promise to do so now and then fail later"), the zone of truth would simply catch their lie - rather than letting them lie and then forcing the lie to become truth.

The problem with that last bit is that it's difficult to tell a player what they are or are not allowed to do based off of a narrative. Was what the player said in the Zone of Truth untrue? Is the player allowed to follow his original plan of breaking the vow? Do you have to retroactively go back in time and change everything to be as if the player spoke the truth in the Zone?

Lots of messy questions, and the only reasonable answer is "Players have immunity to plot-forced mechanics", so the Zone of Truth didn't mean squat. Or rather, it can't, or the whole thing breaks down.

Similarly, you can't show players something that happens to them in the future, because that would force them to be in a circumstance that they can't modify.

[Gallowglass]

I think that might be fair if the player had a reason to change his mind (like, say he forgotten about the vow for some reason), but the wording in the Zone of Truth could be modified to filter out future plans to break your vow ("And intend to uphold your vow to your last breath on this plane?", or something like that).

What would happen in that kind of scenario?

So you are in the interaction where "magic" and "reality" start breaking down which is why this kind of scenario is a bad scenario to put in a game.

the player is going to argue until they are blue in the face that "at the time I really really meant that I would do it, so it was the truth. But I've changed my mind because of reasons."

In reality, if this was really happening and the magic did what it was supposed to the player would've said something like "I vow to do this thing and I may uphold the vow to my last breath on this plane if its convenient, but I am morally weak and I'm already in the back of my mind planning how to get out of this later."

Even the paladin would be "I vow to do this thing and I may uphold the vow to my last breath on this plane because I will feel beholden to do so based on my system of honor, but I'm still imperfect and in the back of my mind I am planning how to get out of this later, but I probably won't do so even though I can think of ways to do so. Maybe. Unless there's some later ethical conflict in which case I will use that conflict as justification for picking which of the two paths I want to follow and claim I'm following the greater good."

However, good luck getting the player to admit that. No, they will stick with "Yes I am telling the truth" then turning to "Things changed! I meant it at the time, now I've changed my mind."

Now, let me add, I don't blame the player for that. That's just human nature.

Stop putting scenarios like this in your game.

No one enjoys it. Its elementary school morality plays pretending to be conflict.

[Man_Over_Game]

Stop putting scenarios like this in your game.

No one enjoys it. Its elementary school morality plays pretending to be conflict.

The intent here is less about forcing players to do something. It's more about keeping a faction informed on the limitations of Zone of Truth. Considering how powerful of a spell it is, you'd think that most factions would know how the spell works. I'm just a guy on the internet, talking about a spell in a made up game. How much research do you think someone would do if it was their life?

It'd be dumb if someone put up a Zone of Truth, compelled someone to make a promise, had that promise be broken, and them be all like "Well, darn, why didn't we think of that?"

So it's not about forcing someone to do something, it's about people who use it knowing whether it can.



, I have plans to have my players get their identities erased to keep them alive for a crime they committed. Magic Aura to make them harder to detect via Divination magic. Spreading lies about their death so that Legend Lore fails to provide insightful information. Lastly, a Zone of Truth to get them to agree to the terms of the identity wipe (or they get kicked into a pit of death, the faction in question is the one that's supposed to be killing them) If the Zone of Truth can't force someone to make a promise, why have it at all?

[Demonslayer666]

It only has to be the truth at that time.

"I had every intention of fulfilling my vow until X happened, now it's a bad idea."

If they don't have a reason to break their vow, they should still fulfill it.

[darknite]

This is among the strangest time travel paradoxes I've ever heard.

[Mercurias]

A player is under a Zone of Truth and failed the Saving Throw.

The player, while under the Zone of Truth, makes a promise to do (or not do) something in the future.

The player then proceeds to attempt to break the vow they made while under the Zone of Truth.

What happens?

Zone of Truth makes you tell the truth while, you’re inside the spell, if you fail to save. It doesn’t have any effect on their oaths other than mean that the character is swearing to follow through on the oath at the time of casting. I would rule that you could even swear the oath to a god you dislike and feel entirely okay with breaking it (and suffering the repercussions if Tiamat comes after you).

Honestly, I would use a Geas spell for this kinda thing.

[Sigreid]

Best you can do is ask the player to respond under the spell in good faith.

A hilarious response would be a character responding "I so swear, but to be honest I'm notoriously unreliable with very poor follow through"

[Keravath]

The Zone of Truth indicates that at the time the character made the vow they intended to keep it. If the character was asked whether they planned to break it later and truthfully said no then the character plans to uphold the vow and does not plan to change their mind.

All this does is place a role playing constraint on the player playing their character. The player can’t pretend they were faking it and didn’t plan to uphold the vow. They can certainly choose to break the vow later if there is some in character reason to do so .. new information, anything. However, I don’t think I’d tend to let the player just say “I changed my mind” .. without explaining, in game, why the character changed their mind.

[Particle_Man]

Another way to look at it is imagine a scenario where there is no zone of truth and the character just makes a vow. Can they later break that vow? Depends on the character and the circumstances.

All zone of truth does is make the character truthful at the time they make the vow. A character that would never break a vow made without a zone of truth will not break one made in a zone of truth (but such a character might not make such a vow in the first place for that reason). A character that routinely makes false promises that they never plan to keep outside the zone of truth might find themselves unable to speak inside the zone of truth. In between you get characters that might truthfully make vows and sometimes keep them, sometimes not. There is room for such a character to make a vow inside the zone of truth intending to keep it, and maybe outside the zone they will keep it and maybe they will honestly change their minds for good reasons.

[DMThac0]

Yea, Geas is probably more effective of a mechanic if the intent is to cause a player to take a certain direction, however I can see a way to make a narrative out of Zone of Truth.

The ZoT is in place, the character has been asked to take this vow, and the structure of that vow is put in place so that they are beholden to the vow until its completion.

Said character has the opportunity to fulfill that vow and rescinds, how then do you dole out punishment? That brings us back around to the original moment of the vow. There needs to be a follow up, immediately after the vow is given, where there is a consequence stated for inaction or refusal. A vow is, in simple terms, a contract, so there must/should be a breach of contract clause in place.

This is by no means attached to the ZoT, but it is a part of the narrative and striking of the vow. When/if the character fails to fulfill the vow then the clause it put into effect. Even if they come up with the "but things changed" argument, they still agreed to the vow/consequence, thus their argument is invalidated. The exception to this is if the person requesting the vow agrees that circumstances have changed and their choice is warranted.

[Gallowglass]

The intent here is less about forcing players to do something. ...


...So it's not about forcing someone to do something...


... If the Zone of Truth can't force someone to make a promise, why have it at all?

I like the "its not about forcing players to do something, its about forcing players to do something." of your reply.

So, yeah, you want Geas for what you are trying to do.

Zone of Truth was never about forcing people to do anything, its about keeping them from knowingly lie.

So its useful for asking questions like "Did you do this in the past" not "Are you going to do this in the future." and especially not "you will do this in the future."

Its a perfectly respectable tool if used for what its intended.

You have designed a scenario that it is not intended for. Because in that scenario, after the faction kicks up zone of truth and says "Do you agree to bide by these terms for the rest of your existence under penalty of death." the ONLY actual truthful response that ANY character would/could give is "I will agree to whatever you say in order to stay alive whether or not I intend to actually follow the agreement. If it ends up being convenient and useful to me to bide by the terms I will, if a reasonable conflict comes up I will certainly break the terms without remorse."

edit in "with remorse" for paladins or other Lawful Good characters.

[Particle_Man]

To the OP, why not have the duration of zone of truth be lengthened and the other procedures you mention be done while they are under that zone? include memory wipes so it is harder for take backsies

[RSP]

Do you trust the Player to RP the character? That’s all this really comes down to: it’s an RP situation, not really a game mechanic situation.

I’ve played with people who don’t care for RP that wouldn’t care about whether their character is or isn’t lying; and I’ve played with others who are fantastic at RP and would have a very good reason why their character changed their mind on the oath.

Really, I’d suggest going into any such situation with eyes open to who the players are. Player who you know doesn’t care and will just do what they want later (or possibly CN character who is self aware enough to know they’ll change their mind) can’t speak the promise. Player that is big into RP and understands their character’s motivations, go ahead and say the promise and enjoy how they play it out.

[zinycor]

Just let them break the oath if they wish to do so, but ask them why are they breaking an oath they intended to obey before.

Letting players answer your questions usually solves these sort of problem.

[NRSASD]

If the Zone of Truth can't force someone to make a promise, why have it at all?

Because the Zone of Truth is for interrogations, not oath-binding. Being in a Zone of Truth is the same as being under duress, which can extract the information you need. Once the duress is lifted though, nothing prevents the character from reneging on their word besides internal morality systems and external consequences. The Zone of Truth is completely and utterly gone.

Unlike Geas, which is for oath-binding.

[Man_Over_Game]

I like the "its not about forcing players to do something, its about forcing players to do something." of your reply.

What I mean is, it's not about me trying to force my players into doing something, it's about users of the spell having expectations about how the spell works.

Because if they can get people to promise stuff, they will. If they can't, they'll find another means, which might mean the difference of using a Zone of Truth at all.

It's the difference between putting a ZoT at a high security checkpoint, and putting a ZoT in a courtroom.

If you can't use it for a checkpoint, you need to hire more guards for escorts. If you can't use it in a court of law, you need to hire investigators to gather evidence. Both sets of challenges are vastly different for how a party might bypass them.

[zinycor]

I think that might be fair if the player had a reason to change his mind (like, say he forgotten about the vow for some reason), but the wording in the Zone of Truth could be modified to filter out future plans to break your vow ("And intend to uphold your vow to your last breath on this plane?", or something like that).

What would happen in that kind of scenario?

The player doesn't need to change his point of view to be sincere, only his character.

[bobofwestgate]

A zone of truth isn't a geas - it seems like the most logical thought process if put in this situation would be "Oh, I'm going to be hurt if I don't agree to whatever the caster of the zone of truth is demanding, so I have to do it!" then, after the zone of truth is gone, immediately realizing that they're no longer bound to do it. It throws a wrinkle into the situation if the PC has reasoned that they can do this while still in the zone of truth. In that situation (if the player says "Ah, I can just promise to do so now and then fail later"), the zone of truth would simply catch their lie - rather than letting them lie and then forcing the lie to become truth.

This. Trying to enforce his vow based on a 2nd level spell is giving the spell way more power than it has.

[Gallowglass]

Because the Zone of Truth is for interrogations, not oath-binding. Being in a Zone of Truth is the same as being under duress, which can extract the information you need. Once the duress is lifted though, nothing prevents the character from reneging on their word besides internal morality systems and external consequences. The Zone of Truth is completely and utterly gone.

Unlike Geas, which is for oath-binding.

I always considered Zone of Truth being a "get out of tedious interrogation roleplaying sessions" free card. No more two hours of "well I am going to shove bamboo under his fingernails until he tells me what I want to know."

When you've been playing for 30 years its amazing the repetition of scenarios that you are happy to skip over, lol.

I've played with DMs that make every guard, every goblin, every character ever interrogated a hardy "I'll never talk!" stereotype that took hours of work to get anything useful out of, and usually not that much useful. To the point that I gave up ever trying to questions characters or take prisoners for information in their campaigns. Gave up on Zone of Truth, Gave up on Speak with Dead, gave up on any information gathering at all. There was no point to it.

As a DM, I try to reward players who take prisoners and try to question people by making it a not-tedious not-irritating process. Most reasonable people would happily answer questions if they are promised continued survival. Now if the players go back on those terms over and over again by killing the prisoners after getting their answers, then I go back to making it more challenging.

[Unoriginal]

This topic is so mind-boggling I had to break a vow of my own and post again.

Zone of Truth only makes you to *speak the truth*, it doesn't do anything about your intentions or limit your behavior further. You can even get away with semantic tricks and misleading answers, for example:

Aristocrat: "Did my brother Gen send you to kill me?"
Assassin under Zone of Truth: "Your brother did send me to kill you."

And then it turns out that it was the aristocrat's other brother that sent the killer.


"I promise to do/not do X" is always a true statement, regardless of if the promise is kept. You are simply describing what you are doing, aka making a promise. It's like saying "I am saying something": it's always true, because you are indeed saying something.


It's actually a clever way to avoid the effects of Zone of Truth.



"Are you a traitor to our cause?"
"I promise I am not the traitor" (factually true, the person IS promising this, regardless of if they are a traitor or not)


"I am making this promise" is always factual, and in consequence true. "I am making this promise and intend on keeping said promise" is a different statement. If the people who put the PC under Zone of Truth want to know if they intent to keep the vow, then they can ask the question, and then the PC has to answer truthfully (or not answer), possibly misleadingly, but more importantly they can still change their mind later on.


Vows and contracts have power in D&D, but only based on the conviction of those who make them or on the power of those who enforce them. There's a reason why the contracts made under the rules of the Plane of Law are enforced by giant robots that can make Demon Princes scared and not by a second-level spell. Speaking the truth isn't the same as keeping a promise.

[DeTess]

What I mean is, it's not about me trying to force my players into doing something, it's about users of the spell having expectations about how the spell works.

Because if they can get people to promise stuff, they will. If they can't, they'll find another means, which might mean the difference of using a Zone of Truth at all.

It's the difference between putting a ZoT at a high security checkpoint, and putting a ZoT in a courtroom.

If you can't use it for a checkpoint, you need to hire more guards for escorts. If you can't use it in a court of law, you need to hire investigators to gather evidence.

I think you seem to think the spell has some power lasting beyond its casting which it doesn't. That doesn't make it useless though. In a courtroom it can force someone to speak the truth. At a checkpoint you can use it to filter out people trying to travel through with the intent to do harm. However, that does not mean that a person claiming to intend to do no harm at the ZoT checkpoint then becomes incapable of doing harm. For example, a notorious thief travels to a city intending to have a relaxing holiday using his stolen money. At the ZoT checkpoint he can easily promise to do no harm to the city because he's just going there on holiday. If he then afterwards learns that an incredibly valuable jewel will be auctioned off he could decide to ditch his holiday plans and go after the jewel anyway.

[Segev]

Let's illustrate by discussing what happens with an NPC in the zone of truth promising another NPC he will do something. This way, the DM knows the mind of all involved parties. The DM knows whether the NPC in the zone of truth truly intends to keep his promise or not; if the NPC does not intend to do so, then (assuming no successful saves or other deceptive magics) the NPC cannot lie and claim that he will.

Therefore, if the NPC in the zone of truth swears he will do something, he means it. He genuinely believes he'll go and do it, because if he had any thought that he could escape the oath afterwards, the zone of truth wouldn't let him lie and swear the oath falsely.

This doesn't prevent him from changing his mind later, but he'd either have to be quite skilled at self-deception, or he'd have to have a real change of heart. For the former, consider how often somebody might tell himself, "Tomorrow, I'll refrain from eating too much and go to the gym and exercise," only for "tomorrow" to become "today" and the guy to decide to indulge in that dessert and skip the gym after all. Some people will do this, knowing that they probably will break this promise to themselves. Others will be earnest at the time, and just not be able to force themselves when the time comes.

The former could swear it under the zone of truth, though anybody who knows them well knows their good intentions are largely meaningless. The latter could not, because they know themselves well enough to know they probably won't. If the latter could swear it in the zone of truth, they are more likely to follow through, though, because they really had to work themselves into a determined state to be able to do it.

For those who instead have a real change of heart, it could be that they lose their fear of whoever compelled them to swear, or it could be that they manage to be convinced that keeping their word isn't that important, or they could swear they mean to bring in that dastardly devil only to learn that dastardly devil is a very nice guy who doesn't deserve to be brought in. At the time, they meant it, but their intentions changed.

The issue, then, arises when the person swearing it is a PC. Is the PLAYER lying about his PC's intentions? This is a lot harder to know, as it involves OOC reading of the player, and is also a lot harder to enforce. The player will be looking for ways to justify his "change of heart" everywhere if the player was insincere about his character's sincerity.

This is, though, ultimately an OOC issue. Asking the player to explain why his character is so certain he'll do as he promises will help. Honest discussion will, too. But it is ultimately an OOC issue, and has to be resolved OOC if the player behaves in a way that makes the DM think he was dodging the mechanics of the ZoT all along.

[Darc_Vader]

If the Zone of Truth can't force someone to make a promise, why have it at all?

To help weed out any spies or traitors, to ensure intel from a captured enemy is somewhat accurate, to determine which of 2 conflicting accounts is the correct one. There are plenty of useful situations for Zone of Truth without it also being an AoE version of a spell 3 levels higher than it.

[Gallowglass]

Zone of Truth only makes you to *speak the truth*, it doesn't do anything about your intentions or limit your behavior further. You can even get away with semantic tricks and misleading answers, for example:

Aristocrat: "Did my brother Gen send you to kill me?"
Assassin under Zone of Truth: "Your brother did send me to kill you."

And then it turns out that it was the aristocrat's other brother that sent the killer.


I would absolutely let the PC get away with this. This is clever, fun and within the spirit of the rules.




"I promise to do/not do X" is always a true statement, regardless of if the promise is kept. You are simply describing what you are doing, aka making a promise. It's like saying "I am saying something": it's always true, because you are indeed saying something.


It's actually a clever way to avoid the effects of Zone of Truth.


Are you a traitor to our cause?"
"I promise I am not the traitor" (factually true, the person IS promising this, regardless of if they are a traitor or not)
.

I would absolutely NOT allow the Player to get away with this. This is too semantically troublesome. While I get your logical pretzel, it wouldn't pass muster in my game.

NPC: "Are you a traitor to our cause?"
PC: "I promise I am not the traitor" or "I'm telling you I'm not the traitor"
DM: "Wait, you are in the zone of truth and failed your save, so you can't lie like that."
Player: *reasons*
DM: "Yeah no. You can come up with a different answer if you want, but that doesn't work. If you try to say that it comes out as "I'm telling you I'm not the traitor, but I am."

Magic has to offer SOME compulsion to enforce the truth. In the first case, I feel like you are speaking a full and truthful statement, albeit not answering the exact question. In the second you are not and know you are not.

[Unoriginal]

Let's illustrate by discussing what happens with an NPC in the zone of truth promising another NPC he will do something. This way, the DM knows the mind of all involved parties. The DM knows whether the NPC in the zone of truth truly intends to keep his promise or not; if the NPC does not intend to do so, then (assuming no successful saves or other deceptive magics) the NPC cannot lie and claim that he will.

Therefore, if the NPC in the zone of truth swears he will do something, he means it. He genuinely believes he'll go and do it, because if he had any thought that he could escape the oath afterwards, the zone of truth wouldn't let him lie and swear the oath falsely.

This doesn't prevent him from changing his mind later, but he'd either have to be quite skilled at self-deception, or he'd have to have a real change of heart.

No, because Zone of Truth forces you to tell the truth, and only that.

PC: "Promise to help."
NPC under ZoT: "I swear to help."

Swearing to help is the factual description of what the NPC is doing. The swearing has been made. It is a true statement of what was happening. It doesn't mean the promise will be kept.

Now if the PC then asked "do you actually intent to help?", the NPC could be in trouble, but that's an entirely different thing.



To put it bluntly: it's not because you sign a contract with your real name that you're forced to obey the contract.

[Man_Over_Game]

This topic is so mind-boggling I had to break a vow of my own and post again.

Zone of Truth only makes you to *speak the truth*, it doesn't do anything about your intentions or limit your behavior further. You can even get away with semantic tricks and misleading answers, for example:

Aristocrat: "Did my brother Gen send you to kill me?"
Assassin under Zone of Truth: "Your brother did send me to kill you."

And then it turns out that it was the aristocrat's other brother that sent the killer.


"I promise to do/not do X" is always a true statement, regardless of if the promise is kept. You are simply describing what you are doing, aka making a promise. It's like saying "I am saying something": it's always true, because you are indeed saying something.


It's actually a clever way to avoid the effects of Zone of Truth.




"I am making this promise" is always factual, and in consequence true. "I am making this promise and intend on keeping said promise" is a different statement. If the people who put the PC under Zone of Truth want to know if they intent to keep the vow, then they can ask the question, and then the PC has to answer truthfully (or not answer), possibly misleadingly, but more importantly they can still change their mind later on.


Vows and contracts have power in D&D, but only based on the conviction of those who make them or on the power of those who enforce them. There's a reason why the contracts made under the rules of the Plane of Law are enforced by giant robots that can make Demon Princes scared and not by a second-level spell. Speaking the truth isn't the same as keeping a promise.

Good info. I don't necessarily agree with the fact that "I'm promising I'm telling the truth" is different than "I promise I'm telling the truth", but you do make a good point on ZoT's in general.

I want to make a separation between Those Who Know Their Sh** and Those Who Don't, in terms of how different entities might use Zone of Truth. I don't want random bandits to come up with a set of very specific questions, I want them to be easily manipulated and maneuvered around. A court wizard, in a city of magic and law, would not allow any room for mistakes, and would know exactly how every question could be resolved (and would likely demand Yes/No answers only).

[Man_Over_Game]

I think you seem to think the spell has some power lasting beyond its casting which it doesn't. That doesn't make it useless though. In a courtroom it can force someone to speak the truth. At a checkpoint you can use it to filter out people trying to travel through with the intent to do harm. However, that does not mean that a person claiming to intend to do no harm at the ZoT checkpoint then becomes incapable of doing harm. For example, a notorious thief travels to a city intending to have a relaxing holiday using his stolen money. At the ZoT checkpoint he can easily promise to do no harm to the city because he's just going there on holiday. If he then afterwards learns that an incredibly valuable jewel will be auctioned off he could decide to ditch his holiday plans and go after the jewel anyway.

That's the main concern I have, and the one that most seem to disagree with.

Sure, it makes sense that an NPC might say they have no intent on committing crimes in the city, but a player's allowed to say whatever they want and change their minds on a whim. I know that might sound like I'm bitter, but that's the realistic truth, otherwise there's a lot of complicated problems. What I'm asking is no different than that checkpoint, but determining what happens when the person that goes through it is a player.

Realistically, users of ZoT wouldn't be stupid enough to assume everything works and just shrug when it doesn't. An organization would learn what mistakes were, and how to avoid them, and pass that information down for generations to the point where NO reliable institution would have to ask questions like this. They'd know whether or not you can trust someone's intentions in a Zone, and it wouldn't be something they'd assume.

[Unoriginal]

I would absolutely NOT allow the Player to get away with this. This is too semantically troublesome. While I get your logical pretzel, it wouldn't pass muster in my game.

NPC: "Are you a traitor to our cause?"
PC: "I promise I am not the traitor" or "I'm telling you I'm not the traitor"
DM: "Wait, you are in the zone of truth and failed your save, so you can't lie like that."
Player: *reasons*
DM: "Yeah no. You can come up with a different answer if you want, but that doesn't work. If you try to say that it comes out as "I'm telling you I'm not the traitor, but I am."

Magic has to offer SOME compulsion to enforce the truth. In the first case, I feel like you are speaking a full and truthful statement, albeit not answering the exact question. In the second you are not and know you are not.

Magic makes you tell the truth, it doesn't decide what you says. And it definitively allows semantic troubles.

"I promise I am not the traitor" is the truth.

Of course, any interrogator with any level of competence would then ask "I don't care about your promise, are you a traitor yes or no?", but one that is overconfident that their fancy magic protect them from low-tier cunning tricks could fall for it.

But at this point it's not a question of the spell, but of who is asking. As a DM I could call for a CHA (Deception) check opposed to the interrogator's WIS (Insight) to see if the interrogator catch on the trick or not.

[PhantomSoul]

No, because Zone of Truth forces you to tell the truth, and only that.

And if being quite picky about phrases, not even that -- it makes it so you can't lie if you fail (and you know you're under the effects).

The affected creature can dodge the question, refuse to answer, attack, or do anything else that isn't lying.

[DeTess]

I want to make a separation between Those Who Know Their Sh** and Those Who Don't, in terms of how different entities might use Zone of Truth. Sounds like Those Who Know would probably just demand Yes/No questions, in order to avoid any grammar shenanigans on the interrogated's part.

That sounds about accurate. People who know their stuff would also know that the answer to any question wrt someone's future intentions becomes more unreliable as time passes.

[Segev]

What I mean is, it's not about me trying to force my players into doing something, it's about users of the spell having expectations about how the spell works.

Because if they can get people to promise stuff, they will. If they can't, they'll find another means, which might mean the difference of using a Zone of Truth at all.

It's the difference between putting a ZoT at a high security checkpoint, and putting a ZoT in a courtroom.

If you can't use it for a checkpoint, you need to hire more guards for escorts. If you can't use it in a court of law, you need to hire investigators to gather evidence. Both sets of challenges are vastly different for how a party might bypass them.


No, because Zone of Truth forces you to tell the truth, and only that.

PC: "Promise to help."
NPC under ZoT: "I swear to help."

Swearing to help is the factual description of what the NPC is doing. The swearing has been made. It is a true statement of what was happening. It doesn't mean the promise will be kept.

Now if the PC then asked "do you actually intent to help?", the NPC could be in trouble, but that's an entirely different thing.



To put it bluntly: it's not because you sign a contract with your real name that you're forced to obey the contract.
Quite. I'm not trying to argue for or against specific wording, just pointing out that the intent is the hard part to judge.


Now, on the subject of whether you'd put this at, say, the guard post: "Did you come here with intent to steal?" "Did you come here with intent to cause harm to anybody?" and other questions like those will work just fine. The thief who came here to steal, no matter whether he convinces himself that he's not going to after all, cannot truthfully say he didn't come here with that intent. A player who tried to claim that he had no ulterior motives for visiting a place with rich people with his sticky-fingered thief of a PC and then that his thief "changed his mind" only AFTER getting inside is going to get a DMG thrown at him most likely. :smalltongue:

None of it guarantees behavior, but it will weed out those who were planning misbehavior from the get-go.

You can also add questions about history. "Have you ever stolen anything on impulse?" for example. Or, "Have you ever changed your mind and stolen something when you had previously not intended to commit theft at all?"

Even adding the, "Are you planning to cause trouble/steal/kill anybody/etc.?" question doesn't hurt; when combined with the others it may even put him in the right mindset of introspection to lessen the "I mean it now, but only because I don't know myself well enough to know I'll almost certainly change my mind in the moment" scenario.

It will not prevent anybody who causes harm or steals or what-have-you. But it will keep MOST of it to 2nd degree crimes of passion and opportunity, and limit repeat offenders.

[zinycor]

Good info. I don't necessarily agree with the fact that "I'm promising I'm telling the truth" is different than "I promise I'm telling the truth", but you do make a good point on ZoT's in general.

I want to make a separation between Those Who Know Their Sh** and Those Who Don't, in terms of how different entities might use Zone of Truth. Sounds like Those Who Know would probably just demand Yes/No questions, in order to avoid any grammar shenanigans on the interrogated's part.

The yes/no method would be the most precise and sort of foolproof way to use ZoT. Nonetheless it puts the burden on the one asking the question.

Now, if you actually want to know the truth, isn't detect thoughts the better spell than ZoT?

[Jay R]

I would absolutely NOT allow the Player to get away with this. This is too semantically troublesome. While I get your logical pretzel, it wouldn't pass muster in my game.

NPC: "Are you a traitor to our cause?"
PC: "I promise I am not the traitor" or "I'm telling you I'm not the traitor"
DM: "Wait, you are in the zone of truth and failed your save, so you can't lie like that."
Player: *reasons*
DM: "Yeah no. You can come up with a different answer if you want, but that doesn't work. If you try to say that it comes out as "I'm telling you I'm not the traitor, but I am."

Magic has to offer SOME compulsion to enforce the truth. In the first case, I feel like you are speaking a full and truthful statement, albeit not answering the exact question. In the second you are not and know you are not.

Agreed. But here are still ways around it. I am currently reading a novel in which one of Richelieu's men is caught red-handed steal some important papers from him. Somebody accused him of being a traitor. He replies, "A traitor is somebody who betrays his masters. I can only assure you that I have not betrayed mine."

This was the simple truth. He was not a one-time loyal follower of Richelieu who then betrayed him. He is a spy who took a job with Richelieu in order to spy on him.

[Gallowglass]

Of course, any interrogator with any level of competence would then ask "I don't care about your promise, are you a traitor yes or no?", but one that is overconfident that their fancy magic protect them from low-tier cunning tricks could fall for it.

That is an unrealistic expectation of competence. Without your explanation, no reasonable person would hear "I promise I'm not the traitor" any different that "I'm not the traitor". And I would rule that no reasonable magic spell that's compelling the truth would fail to detect that as a lie.

But, and I stress this, that's my OPINION and how I would rule it as a DM. Your mileage will vary.



But at this point it's not a question of the spell, but of who is asking. As a DM I could call for a CHA (Deception) check opposed to the interrogator's WIS (Insight) to see if the interrogator catch on the trick or not.

That's a perfectly reasonable way to DM and play out the situation.

[Unoriginal]

Good info. I don't necessarily agree with the fact that "I'm promising I'm telling the truth" is different than "I promise I'm telling the truth", but you do make a good point on ZoT's in general.

"I promise I'm telling the truth" isn't different from "I'm promising I'm telling the truth", as far as ZoT is concerned. Both are factual, truthful descriptions of what is happening.



I want to make a separation between Those Who Know Their Sh** and Those Who Don't, in terms of how different entities might use Zone of Truth. I don't want random bandits to come up with a set of very specific questions, I want them to be easily manipulated and maneuvered around. A court wizard, in a city of magic and law, would not make allow any room for mistakes, and would know exactly how every question could be resolved (and would likely demand Yes/No answers only).

That would be for the better, yes.


That's the main concern I have, and the one that most seem to disagree with.

Sure, it makes sense that an NPC might say they have no intent on committing crimes in the city, but a player's allowed to say whatever they want and change their minds on a whim. I know that sounds condescending and bitter, but that's the realistic truth, otherwise there's a lot of complicated problems. What I'm asking is no different than that checkpoint, but determining what happens when the person that goes through it is a player.

People make sincere promises and then break them all the time. It's not a player thing, it's a person thing.

How many people sincerely swear to quit smoking or to be faithful to their partner and then do it anyway when the temptation gets too big for them?

How many criminals would sincerely swear to stop committing crimes, and then actually keep the promise if they see a golden opportunity? Some would, but not all.

[Segev]

That's a perfectly reasonable way to DM and play out the situation.

I disagree. This is exactly how it would be handled without the spell at all: the would-be liar rolls Charisma(Deception) to tell a believable lie, and the interrogator rolls Wisdom(Intuition) to determine if he can tell the difference between earnest truth and a clever lie.

The spell should have SOME effect, mechanically.

[Gallowglass]

I disagree. This is exactly how it would be handled without the spell at all: the would-be liar rolls Charisma(Deception) to tell a believable lie, and the interrogator rolls Wisdom(Intuition) to determine if he can tell the difference between earnest truth and a clever lie.

The spell should have SOME effect, mechanically.

You are correct. I rescind my earlier statement.

[Man_Over_Game]

People make sincere promises and then break them all the time. It's not a player thing, it's a person thing.

How many people sincerely swear to quit smoking or to be faithful to their partner and then do it anyway when the temptation gets too big for them?

How many criminals would sincerely swear to stop committing crimes, and then actually keep the promise if they see a golden opportunity? Some would, but not all.

The difference is, players often have goals. They don't always change their minds on a whim. Many of the things you're describing are reactive things, ones that break against what their current desires are.

However, a player may arrive at a castle, with the intent to kill the prince, proceed to tell them he's safe because "I'm the player and the GM isn't going to tell me what I can or cannot say", then proceed with Operation Kill (the person formerly known as) Prince.

Unless he just thinks really, REALLY hard about not killing the prince while in the Zone?

[zinycor]

I disagree. This is exactly how it would be handled without the spell at all: the would-be liar rolls Charisma(Deception) to tell a believable lie, and the interrogator rolls Wisdom(Intuition) to determine if he can tell the difference between earnest truth and a clever lie.

The spell should have SOME effect, mechanically.

It does, and is an amazing one, it forces the player to come up.with clever ways to bypass the actual truth, without lying.

[Gallowglass]

The difference is, players often have goals. Many of the things you're describing are reactive things, ones that break against what their current desires are.

However, a player may arrive at a castle, with the intent to kill the prince, "Tell them I'm safe because I'm the player and the GM isn't going to tell me what to say", then proceed with Operation Kill (the person formerly known as) Prince.

Most players I play with are capable enough players to not do that.

Some would do exactly that.

As which point, as DM, I would call bull**** and make them either come up with a different lie that passes muster or have them incredulously stare as what they intended to say comes out as something different, the truth.

And if your players would do that, you should definitely not include scenarios in you game because its just going to breed arguments and are unnecessary to include in the first place.

Also you should find different players. That's what everyone says on this board right? Whenever there is a disagreement?

[Unoriginal]

I disagree. This is exactly how it would be handled without the spell at all: the would-be liar rolls Charisma(Deception) to tell a believable lie, and the interrogator rolls Wisdom(Intuition) to determine if he can tell the difference between earnest truth and a clever lie.

The spell should have SOME effect, mechanically.

The mechanical effect is that the person cannot lie. That limits the methods of falsehood dramatically. Of course a smart interrogator wouldn't ask questions that can easily be subverted, no check needed.

Which is why demanding yes/no answers would resolve basically all the attempts at exact-wording your way out.

[PhantomSoul]

The difference is, players often have goals. They don't always change their minds on a whim. Many of the things you're describing are reactive things, ones that break against what their current desires are.

And thus, it was both not a lie when said, and Zone of Truth can do nothing to bind them to a course of action in the future. (It can technically not even force them into doing anything during the spell; it just makes it so the target has one thing they can't do during the spell.)

You can ask about current desires, but you can't block those desires from changing, nor can you know for sure whether they'll change.

[zinycor]

However, a player may arrive at a castle, with the intent to kill the prince, proceed to tell them he's safe because "I'm the player and the GM isn't going to tell me what to say", then proceed with Operation Kill (the person formerly known as) Prince.

What? No.... just no.

The character the player is playing is forced to not lie, therefore, the player is forced to come up with an alternative when asked "Do you intend to kill the Prince" He has to come up with some "clever" answer, but he can't just bypass the problem. That's ridiculous.

[Unoriginal]

The difference is, players often have goals. They don't always change their minds on a whim. Many of the things you're describing are reactive things, ones that break against what their current desires are.

However, a player may arrive at a castle, with the intent to kill the prince, proceed to tell them he's safe because "I'm the player and the GM isn't going to tell me what I can or cannot say", then proceed with Operation Kill (the person formerly known as) Prince.

Unless he just thinks really, REALLY hard about not killing the prince while in the Zone?

Then the player is 100% wrong and the GM, or at least the in-universe effects, can indeed tell him what his character can or cannot say.

Same way that if a PC is under mind control, they can be forced to confess having murdering the prince even if they didn't do it.


It does, and is an amazing one, it forces the player to come up.with clever ways to bypass the actual truth, without lying.

Also this. It's a challenge, not a video-game-style invisible wall to ward off areas you're not supposed to go.

[Demonslayer666]

...

"I promise to do/not do X" is always a true statement, regardless of if the promise is kept. You are simply describing what you are doing, aka making a promise. It's like saying "I am saying something": it's always true, because you are indeed saying something.
...

No, it is not always a true statement. That is is a lie if you have no intention of doing it.

The truth isn't about weather or not you said something (did I made a promise?), the truth is weather or not you intend to fulfill it.

[Gallowglass]

The difference is, players often have goals. They don't always change their minds on a whim. Many of the things you're describing are reactive things, ones that break against what their current desires are.

However, a player may arrive at a castle, with the intent to kill the prince, proceed to tell them he's safe because "I'm the player and the GM isn't going to tell me what I can or cannot say", then proceed with Operation Kill (the person formerly known as) Prince.

Unless he just thinks really, REALLY hard about not killing the prince while in the Zone?

Also, jsut becuase this is quickly turning into a semi-strawman.

There is a WORLD of difference between the scenarios you describe of....

"Do you promise to uphold this vow until the end of your days."

and

"Do you intend harm to the Prince"

I mean, there is a grand canyon sized gap between those two scenarios and how they would response to a zone of truth. If those sound the same to you, then I don't know what to say.

[Man_Over_Game]

Most players I play with are capable enough players to not do that.

Some would do exactly that.

As which point, as DM, I would call bull**** and make them either come up with a different lie that passes muster or have them incredulously stare as what they intended to say comes out as something different, the truth.

And if your players would do that, you should definitely not include scenarios in you game because its just going to breed arguments and are unnecessary to include in the first place.

Also you should find different players. That's what everyone says on this board right? Whenever there is a disagreement?

So after taking this, and all the other responses in, here's the summary:


You CAN say you do not have intentions to do something, then later gain intentions to do the same thing.
You CANNOT say you do not have intentions to do something when you clearly did have intentions and plan on maintaining those intents after the ZoT.
Forcing players into saying or doing specific things isn't a good way to run a game, and because of this, it's better to make exceptions for player-controlled characters than assuming that all ZoT subjects have to follow the same rules/exceptions as players.


Basically, players have narrative superpowers that make them special in order for the game to work right, and it's best to not plan around those superpowers unless there's no other choice.

Makes me think of the Fable games a bit, like "Player" is a special lineage of people.

[Unoriginal]

No, it is not always a true statement. That is is a lie if you have no intention of doing it.

The truth isn't about weather or not you said something (did I made a promise?), the truth is weather or not you intend to fulfill it or not.

Nope. "I promise X" is always true, because you are indeed promising X. Not intending to keep the promise does not make the statement less true.

It's the same principle as the old logical paradox "this statement is a lie", in reverse.

If the person said "I promise X and I'll keep my promise", then it could be true or false.

The *promise* could be completely worthless, but the statement that the promise is being made is true, and the ZoT only care about the veracity of the statement.

[Gallowglass]

So after taking this, and all the other responses in, here's the summary:


You can say you do not have intentions to do something, then later gain intentions to do the same thing.
You CANNOT say you do not have intentions to do something when you clearly did have intentions and plan on maintaining those intents after the ZoT.
Forcing players into saying or doing specific things isn't a good way to run a game, and because of this, it's better to make exceptions for player-controlled characters than assuming that all ZoT subjects have to follow the same rules/exceptions as players.



Basically, players have narrative superpowers that make them special in order for the game to work right, and it's best to not plan around those superpowers unless there's no other choice.

aaaand we are in full strawman.

Well, as you are misrepresenting everything I said, we are obviously not going to effectively communicate.

I partially blame myself for an overly abrasive cynical tone. For that I apologize.

For what its worth, a truer summary would be


Don't use Zone of Truth for what its not meant for
Don't try to force your Players to do things just to suit your plot
Don't be surprised that players, who are often far cleverer than their characters would or should be, attempt to work around obstacles. As that's the point of there being obstacles in the first place
Don't use mechanics in your game that are just irritating to everyone



I don't think Players have "narrative superpower." as I was very clear in several posts, as a DM I would not let them get away with on overt subversion of the spell, only a very clever subversion.

Your original scenario of "do you promise to do this." would never work because its not what zone of truth is for.

Your second scenario of checkpoint charlie "do you intend to harm the prince" would work because the players, who were there to harm the prince, would not be able to say "No". becuase THAT'S WHAT THE SPELL IS MEANT FOR. They also would not be able to say "I promise I mean no harm to the prince" because that's garbage. But they -could- come up with a more clever way, it would have to be a way that makes sense to me, the dm, the arbitrator of the game. But that's a hard one to clever your way past.

Good luck with your overly scripted, heavy handed forced narrative plot. I hope your players have fun somehow.

[PhantomSoul]

Forcing players into saying or doing specific things isn't a good way to run a game, and because of this, it's better to make exceptions for player-controlled characters than assuming that all ZoT subjects have to follow the same rules/exceptions as players.



Basically, players have narrative superpowers that make them special in order for the game to work right, and it's best to not plan around those superpowers unless there's no other choice.

That... doesn't seem like what people are generally saying. The player characters have the same restrictions from what appears to be a pretty good level of consensus.

EDIT: And again, Zone of Truth doesn't force any targets to say anything. In fact, the spell description explicitly counters that; there's a whole range of options right in the spell description. All the spell does is mean that someone who fails their saving throw can't lie.

[Unoriginal]

So after taking this, and all the other responses in, here's the summary:


You can say you do not have intentions to do something, then later gain intentions to do the same thing.
You CANNOT say you do not have intentions to do something when you clearly did have intentions and plan on maintaining those intents after the ZoT.
Forcing players into saying or doing specific things isn't a good way to run a game, and because of this, it's better to make exceptions for player-controlled characters than assuming that all ZoT subjects have to follow the same rules/exceptions as players.



Basically, players have narrative superpowers that make them special in order for the game to work right, and it's best to not plan around those superpowers unless there's no other choice.

You're taking the wrong lessons from this.

Players don't have narrative superpowers. Everyone, NPCs included, can make a promise then change their mind, and NO ONE can say "I don't intent to do X" when they intent to do X, if they are under ZoT effect.

A player who says "I don't intent to kill the prince" when the PC did is just being a petulant jerk. If they can figure out a way to exact-word their way out of the Zone, why not, but outright lying is just trying to cheat at a TTRPG.

[Man_Over_Game]

That... doesn't seem like what people are generally saying. The player characters have the same restrictions from what appears to be a pretty good level of consensus.

EDIT: And again, Zone of Truth doesn't force any targets to say anything. In fact, the spell description explicitly counters that; there's a whole range of options right in the spell description. All the spell does is mean that someone who fails their saving throw can't lie.

You're right. I'm not really that interested in the specifics of ZoT, or the many ways of getting out of it.

Specifically, I'm interested in what happens when a player was magically forced to tell the truth about their future intended actions, they said something that was "acceptable" as an answer (the DM cannot "force" a player's decision), but was a straight up lie in every conceivable way. He did intend to do those things before, he said he didn't, and he intended to do those things after.

Either ZoT does nothing regarding people's intentions, or it forces players into doing something (either the DM forcing the player to say what the DM wants them to say in the ZoT, or forcing the player to obey his vow).

I'm having trouble seeing a third option, other than "Players are the exception". But maybe you're right, and I'm reading things wrong.

[zinycor]

So after taking this, and all the other responses in, here's the summary:


You can say you do not have intentions to do something, then later gain intentions to do the same thing.
You CANNOT say you do not have intentions to do something when you clearly did have intentions and plan on maintaining those intents after the ZoT.
Forcing players into saying or doing specific things isn't a good way to run a game, and because of this, it's better to make exceptions for player-controlled characters than assuming that all ZoT subjects have to follow the same rules/exceptions as players.



Basically, players have narrative superpowers that make them special in order for the game to work right, and it's best to not plan around those superpowers unless there's no other choice.

What?? What are you even talking about?

The spell doesn't compel players to say the truth, it compels their characters to not lie.
None of the people (as far as I have seen) have said that any of the ways to bypass the spell are unique to players, any NPCs would be free to use the same tactics described.

[DeTess]

You're right. I'm not really that interested in the specifics of ZoT, or the many ways of getting out of it.

Specifically, I'm interested in what happens when a player was magically forced to tell the truth about their future intended actions, they said something that was "acceptable" as an answer (the DM cannot "force" a player's decision), but was a straight up lie in every conceivable way. He did intend to do those things before, and he intended to do those things after.

Either ZoT cannot ask about people's intentions (or future actions), or it forces players into doing something. I'm having trouble seeing a third option.

Maybe you should spell out exact situation you're imagining? It seems you're only considering the possibility of:
*zone of truth is cast*
interrogater: Player, do you intend me harm.
player: no.
*player stabs interrogator*

While the situation a lot of is imagine is probably more along the lines off:
*zone of truth is cast*
interrogater: Player, do you intend me harm.
player: no.
*some time later*
trustworthy dude: interrogator is totally evil, yo!
player: okay, I'm going to go stab the interrogator now.

The previous is obviously BS on the player's part, but in the latter the PC decides to go back on their earlier claim made in the ZoT because of new info, which is completely fine. If your players actually commit the first one, then you have a problem that can not be solved with in-game stuff, because it means you've got a player that just refuses to play by the rules.

[PhantomSoul]

You're right. I'm not really that interested in the specifics of ZoT, or the many ways of getting out of it.

Specifically, I'm interested in what happens when a player was magically forced to tell the truth about their future intended actions, they said something that was "acceptable" as an answer (the DM cannot "force" a player's decision), but was a straight up lie in every conceivable way. He did intend to do those things before, and he intended to do those things after.

Either ZoT does nothing regarding people's intentions, or it forces players into doing something (either the DM forcing the player to say what the DM wants them to say in the ZoT, or forcing the player to obey his vow).

I'm having trouble seeing a third option, other than "Players are the exception". But maybe you're right, and I'm reading things wrong.

I think you're reading them wrong; people aren't saying it doesn't read intentions (quite the opposite), just that it doesn't bind them to those intentions. You seem to have false dichotomies in mind (it's not "ignores intentions or forces them to act on them after the spell ends" at all.) There's nothing special about the PCs in people's comments from what I'm seeing.

If it's a lie, then it's a lie, and the spell blocks it. The spell doesn't force speech otherwise or at all; it doesn't force you to answer, and doesn't block you from being deceptive. It just prevents outright lies. If it's a lie in every conceivable way, then it's a lie and the spell blocks saying it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Maybe you should spell out exact situation you're imagining? It seems you're only considering the possibility of:
*zone of truth is cast*
interrogater: Player, do you intend me harm.
player: no.
*player stabs interrogator*

While the situation a lot of is imagine is probably more along the lines off:
*zone of truth is cast*
interrogater: Player, do you intend me harm.
player: no.
*some time later*
trustworthy dude: interrogator is totally evil, yo!
player: okay, I'm going to go stab the interrogator now.

The previous is obviously BS on the player's part, but in the latter the PC decides to go back on their earlier claim made in the ZoT because of new info, which is completely fine. If your players actually commit the first one, then you have a problem that can not be solved with in-game stuff, because it means you've got a player that just refuses to play by the rules.

I agree with all of that. The only difference is, I was wondering if DMs had mechanical/narrative solutions for the bolded portion.

[PhantomSoul]

I agree with all of that. The only difference is, I was wondering if DMs had mechanical/narrative solutions for the bolded portion.

The quoted part includes that it isn't something for that kind of solution -- it requires talking to the players, because it's the player who didn't follow the game mechanics and rules. And probably retconning to when the player answered the question if it just happened and/or asking the player how the player's answer wasn't a lie.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think you're reading them wrong; people aren't saying it doesn't read intentions (quite the opposite), just that it doesn't bind them to those intentions. You seem to have false dichotomies in mind (it's not "ignores intentions or forces them to act on them after the spell ends" at all.) There's nothing special about the PCs in people's comments from what I'm seeing.

If it's a lie, then it's a lie, and the spell blocks it. The spell doesn't force speech otherwise or at all; it doesn't force you to answer, and doesn't block you from being deceptive. It just prevents outright lies. If it's a lie in every conceivable way, then it's a lie and the spell blocks saying it.

But, playing that realistically, it's not quite that simple.

"The interrogator demands your answer"
"I tell him that I won't try to hurt him or his people!" -double checks his spell slots
"The interrogator releases you"
-Several minutes pass.
"I cast Fireball at the Interrogator and his friends"

Do you stop the player from what he said in the middle of the investigation because there's a chance he might be lying (which you might not be certain of), or is the player not allowed to cast Fireball?

[Unoriginal]

I agree with all of that. The only difference is, I was wondering if DMs had mechanical/narrative solutions for the bolded portion.

There is no in-game solutions to an out-of-game problem.

You're basically asking "this player is not respecting the rules or respecting the other persons around the table, what could make their character behave?"

Talk to the player, be understanding but firm, and make clear that behaving like a jerk is not going to be tolerated.

[Segev]

You're right. I'm not really that interested in the specifics of ZoT, or the many ways of getting out of it.

Specifically, I'm interested in what happens when a player was magically forced to tell the truth about their future intended actions, they said something that was "acceptable" as an answer (the DM cannot "force" a player's decision), but was a straight up lie in every conceivable way. He did intend to do those things before, and he intended to do those things after.

Either ZoT does nothing regarding people's intentions, or it forces players into doing something (either the DM forcing the player to say what the DM wants them to say in the ZoT, or forcing the player to obey his vow).

I'm having trouble seeing a third option, other than "Players are the exception, handle it case-by-case".

Let's try breaking it down. This may get a little tedious, for which I apologize.

We have several cases to examine, here:

The player intends for his character to do X, swears his character doesn't intend to do X so his character can "truthfully" say he doesn't intend to do X while in a ZoT, then has his character do X because his character "changed his mind."
The player intends for his character to do X, but realizes once he's under the ZoT that he's stuck, and so the player changes his mind and now truthfully has his character say he doesn't intend to do X (with "anymore" going unsaid), then the PC finds himself in a situation where he can do X after all and the player changes his mind again and decides to do X.
The player had no intention of his character doing X; the thought may or may not even have occurred to him. When asked about it in a ZoT, he truthfully has his character say, "I do not intend to do X." Later, when presented the opportunity to do X, the player and his character have genuinely changed their minds. The player has his character do X.

There are numerous variations, and plenty of other cases we could examine, but I think these are the big ones for this discussion.

In case 1, I think we can agree that the player is lying when he insists his character is NOT lying about lacking intent to do X. This comes down to whether the DM is fooled, OOC, by the player. If he is not, he can simply say, "No, ZoT doesn't permit you to lie, and I know that you and your PC intend very much to do X. You can't claim you don't intend to do X; the words won't leave your lips." If he IS fooled, well, the player just cheated. It's no different than if the player claimed he rolled a natural 20 on the save against the spell and fooled the DM into believing him, when he'd really rolled a natural 1. This is an OOC problem, either way, because it is the PLAYER trying to cheat.

In cases 2 and 3, things are fairly legitimate, though case 2 can be prevented by having additional questions about what intent was before the interrogation began, etc. Case 3 likely involves some new information arising that changes the PC's mind, so should feel pretty organic and natural.

In case 1, when the DM is fooled, he should still be asking why the PC changed his mind. He shouldn't necessarily prevent it (though, if it ruins the fun of the game for the table, he could retcon things on the principle of not letting one player being a jerk ruin the game for everyone else), but he should keep in mind if he feels like the player is pulling a fast one, and be more on guard in the future.

Again, it's primarily an OOC problem, and should be handled OOC.

[zinycor]

But, playing that realistically, it's not quite that simple.

"The interrogator demands your answer"
"I tell him that I won't try to hurt him or his people!" -double checks his spell slots
"The interrogator releases you"
-Several minutes pass.
"I cast Fireball at the Interrogator and his friends"

Do you stop the player from what he said in the middle of the investigation because there's a chance he might be lying (which you might not be certain of), or is the player not allowed to cast Fireball?

You stop the player to ask him: did something change between the interrogation and now, that changed your character's intentions?

[Unoriginal]

But, playing that realistically, it's not quite that simple.

"The interrogator demands your answer"
"I tell him that I won't try to hurt him or his people!" -double checks his spell slots
"The interrogator releases you"
-Several minutes pass.
"I cast Fireball at the Interrogator and his friends"

Do you stop the player from what he said in the middle of the investigation because there's a chance he might be lying (which you might not be certain of), or is the player not allowed to cast Fireball?

No interrogator worth their salt would accept "I will/won't do X" as a statement under ZoT.

The truthfulness of the statement can only be established post-facto.


Also, an interrogator who ask on what someone would do *in the future* is wasting their time. They're not the Future Crime brigade, they're people who need to know concrete facts.

[Gallowglass]

I agree with all of that. The only difference is, I was wondering if DMs had mechanical/narrative solutions for the bolded portion.

I'm only familiar with the 3.5 version of ZoT (or Pathfinder) not 5e, so if its markedly different then I apologize. But in pathfinder its:

"Creatures within the emanation area (or those who enter it) can’t speak any deliberate and intentional lies. Each potentially affected creature is allowed a save to avoid the effects when the spell is cast or when the creature first enters the emanation area. Affected creatures are aware of this enchantment. Therefore, they may avoid answering questions to which they would normally respond with a lie, or they may be evasive as long as they remain within the boundaries of the truth. Creatures who leave the area are free to speak as they choose."

So your scenario would play out as

Guard: "Do you intend me harm?"
Player: "No."
DM to Player: "Are you serious about that or are you just planning on stabbing him."
Player: "Oh I'm serious"
DM: "Okay, you say No."
Player: "I stab him."
DM: "Yeah no, that's what I thought. Rewind. You try to say "No" to his answer but the word will not emenate from your mouth as the Zone keeps you from spewing your treacherous lies. Do you want to try and say something different?'
Player: "No, I say No, and I mean it because *convoluted bull**** reasons*"
DM: "So you don't want to try to say something different?"
Player: "I say NO!"
DM: "Okay. You try to say No and nothing comes out. The guard notices you sputter and strain and realizes you are trying to lie. He attacks you."
Player: "What? That's bull****. I quit."
DM: "Good riddance."

Of couse, with my players, who are reasonable able-minded human beings it would actually be more like.

Guard: "Do you intend me harm?"
Player: "No."
DM to Player: "Are you serious about that or are you just planning on stabbing him."
Player: "Ha, no, I'm totally going to kill him."
DM: "Yeah, you know you can't lie right?'
Player: "Sigh okay let me think. I say, uh, "Harm you? Why would I want to harm you? That would be wrong! Do you actually get people through here who try to lie about that? What do you do when you find someone who says yes? My god that must be terrifying." "Can I make a diplomancy check or something to try and charm my way past him with my comradely good nature and 18 charisma."
DM: "Sure, why not." *competing rolls* "Okay, the Guard laughs when you laugh and seems put at ease by your jovial nature. You have a long conversation about how hard it is to be a guard, how he lives in constant fear and danger, that he worries about leaving his children and wife alone in the world, but that its the only job he can get with his background in fighter-y. He talks about what a boon it is to have the zone of truth up, how its made his job safer and better all around. He fails to notice you never actually answered the question and let's you pass unhindered."
Player: "Great, as he turns back toward the door, I circle back around and stab him."
DM: "Of course you do."

[Laserlight]

The solution is, don't ask questions that rely on someone's possible future intentions. Ask "Do you intend to cause harm to any of the people who are authorized to be here?" and "What sort of harm do you intend to cause?" (because "I want to get the princess into a political marriage she doesn't want, because it will benefit the kingdom" is a legit answer). "Are you actually the person you have just told us you are?" "At whose request did you come here today?"

If ZoT can enforce future behavior, you need to market it as a weight loss and exercise aid.

[zinycor]

Let's try breaking it down. This may get a little tedious, for which I apologize.

We have several cases to examine, here:

The player intends for his character to do X, swears his character doesn't intend to do X so his character can "truthfully" say he doesn't intend to do X while in a ZoT, then has his character do X because his character "changed his mind."
The player intends for his character to do X, but realizes once he's under the ZoT that he's stuck, and so the player changes his mind and now truthfully has his character say he doesn't intend to do X (with "anymore" going unsaid), then the PC finds himself in a situation where he can do X after all and the player changes his mind again and decides to do X.
The player had no intention of his character doing X; the thought may or may not even have occurred to him. When asked about it in a ZoT, he truthfully has his character say, "I do not intend to do X." Later, when presented the opportunity to do X, the player and his character have genuinely changed their minds. The player has his character do X.

There are numerous variations, and plenty of other cases we could examine, but I think these are the big ones for this discussion.

In case 1, I think we can agree that the player is lying when he insists his character is NOT lying about lacking intent to do X. This comes down to whether the DM is fooled, OOC, by the player. If he is not, he can simply say, "No, ZoT doesn't permit you to lie, and I know that you and your PC intend very much to do X. You can't claim you don't intend to do X; the words won't leave your lips." If he IS fooled, well, the player just cheated. It's no different than if the player claimed he rolled a natural 20 on the save against the spell and fooled the DM into believing him, when he'd really rolled a natural 1. This is an OOC problem, either way, because it is the PLAYER trying to cheat.

In cases 2 and 3, things are fairly legitimate, though case 2 can be prevented by having additional questions about what intent was before the interrogation began, etc. Case 3 likely involves some new information arising that changes the PC's mind, so should feel pretty organic and natural.

In case 1, when the DM is fooled, he should still be asking why the PC changed his mind. He shouldn't necessarily prevent it (though, if it ruins the fun of the game for the table, he could retcon things on the principle of not letting one player being a jerk ruin the game for everyone else), but he should keep in mind if he feels like the player is pulling a fast one, and be more on guard in the future.

Again, it's primarily an OOC problem, and should be handled OOC.

I don't think case 1 is necessarily cheating, the spell affects the character, not the player.

[Sigreid]

An example. A barbarian goes to town and is asked if he intends to fight in town. Barbarian answers that he's just here for supplies and mead and isn't looking for a fight. Spell showes he's truthful. Later, one of the townsfolk insults him, his people and his mother. Barbarian splits the townsfolk's skull.

The barbarian did not lie. He was not looking for a fight. He just did what barbarian's do when a fight came looking for him.

Zone of truth can only get the target's true perspective on past events and truthful current intentions. It cannot predict or enforce future behavior. It certainly cant force someone into a binding agreement. Though it could force honesty about whether a person intends to follow an agreement.

If you want to force behavior, you need to use geas.

[Man_Over_Game]

An example. A barbarian goes to town and is asked if he intends to fight in town. Barbarian answers that he's just here for supplies and mead and isn't looking for a fight. Spell showes he's truthful. Later, one of the townsfolk insults him, his people and his mother. Barbarian splits the townsfolk's skull.

The barbarian did not lie. He was not looking for a fight. He just did what barbarian's do when a fight came looking for him.

Zone of truth can only get the target's true perspective on past events and truthful current intentions. It cannot predict or enforce future behavior. It certainly cant force someone into a binding agreement. Though it could force honesty about whether a person intends to follow an agreement.

If you want to force behavior, you need to use geas.

I have no problems with people/characters changing their minds That seems pretty obviously an acceptable option.

My concern is arriving at the ZoT with intentions that do not change. For example, someone intending to assassinate a king vs. someone who doesn't intend to assassinate the king and then getting the urge to later (the assassin is much more likely and likely more capable).

While an NPC Assassin is easily dealt with in these circumstances, how should things play out if the assassin was a player? You cannot prove the player is telling a lie, as it hasn't happened yet.

[Segev]

I don't think case 1 is necessarily cheating, the spell affects the character, not the player.

Unless the DM and player already are working together to contrive the PC into a situation like this (in which case there's no real issue), the player trying to contrive reasons why his PC would go there without having the motive the player does have, and then to change the PC's motivation, is pretty much cheating. It's not really treating the PC like a character. It's up there with the player who plays a paladin but has him lie, cheat, steal, and murder, but "not mean to" and always be "justified" by contrivances of the player's creation to explain why it wasn't a willingly evil act.

[Sigreid]

I have no problems with people/characters changing their minds That seems pretty obviously an acceptable option.

My concern is arriving at the ZoT with intentions that do not change. For example, someone arriving to assassinate a king is much more dangerous and more likely than someone who doesn't intend to assassinate the king and then getting the urge to later.

While an NPC Assassin is easily dealt with in these circumstances, how should things play out if the assassin was a player?

I'm afraid you have only 2 options. If you know the player was hired to assassinate the king you can remind the player he has to tell the truth. If you dont know what the player intends in town, you have to trust them to play it square instead of being a little punk.

[zinycor]

I have no problems with people/characters changing their minds That seems pretty obviously an acceptable option.

My concern is arriving at the ZoT with intentions that do not change. For example, someone arriving to assassinate a king vs. someone who doesn't intend to assassinate the king and then getting the urge to later (the assassin is much more likely and likely more capable).

While an NPC Assassin is easily dealt with in these circumstances, how should things play out if the assassin was a player?

If it was already established that the player has an intent to kill the king, then he would not be able to lie. He would be able to say half truths or lawyer his way out.

[Sigreid]

To sum up, sometimes you have to trust the people you play with to not cheat.

[Man_Over_Game]

To sum up, sometimes you have to trust the people you play with to not cheat.

Unless it is coupled with good understanding of grammar

[zinycor]

Unless it is coupled with good understanding of grammar

?? I don't get it

[Man_Over_Game]

?? I don't get it

You're not allowed to cheat when under the influences of Zone of Truth, unless you're able to weasel out your problems, usually using word play.

Cheating IS allowed, but only when you follow the rules.

[Unoriginal]

The only question is:

Would that player lie to you, as the DM and arbiter of the game (not to the NPCs), regarding what they're doing/can do in the game?



You're not allowed to cheat when under the influences of Zone of Truth, unless you're able to weasel out of telling the truth, usually using word play.

Cheating IS allowed, but only when you follow the rules.

You're spouting nonsense. Following the rules is by definition not cheating. You can BEAT a Zone of Truth, using the truth in-universe.

Cheating is a meta-problem.

[Sigreid]

I read the other day that some politician once said that the best way to lie is to tell the truth unconvincingly.

[Man_Over_Game]

The only question is:

Would that player lie to you, as the DM and arbiter of the game (not to the NPCs), regarding what they're doing/can do in the game?




You're spouting nonsense. Following the rules is by definition not cheating. You can BEAT a Zone of Truth, using the truth in-universe.

Cheating is a meta-problem.

:amused:

It WAS an attempt at a joke, but clearly I shouldn't do humor.

Sass aside, it's good to have you back. I'm glad my incessant rambling angered the eldritch gods enough to summon you from your deep slumber. You definitely have as much experience as an Eldritch God would be worth.

[zinycor]

You're not allowed to cheat when under the influences of Zone of Truth, unless you're able to weasel out your problems, usually using word play.

Cheating IS allowed, but only when you follow the rules.

You have weird definitions for cheating.

[GooeyChewie]

I read the other day that some politician once said that the best way to lie is to tell the truth unconvincingly.

“Absolutely nothing happened in Sector 83 by 9 by 12 today. I repeat, nothing happened in Sector 83 by 9 by 12.” -Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5

[Unoriginal]

Sass aside, it's good to have you back. I'm glad my incessant rambling angered the eldritch gods enough to summon you from your deep slumber.

Actually it (and the other threads on page 1 of this subforum, to be fair) just further convinced me that leaving was the right decision and that I should have definitively stuck with it.

[zinycor]

Actually it (and the other threads on page 1 of this subforum, to be fair) just further convinced me that leaving was the right decision and that I should have definitively stuck with it.

Really? As I see it, this is a very civil forum, people are often nice and receptive. What are your problems with it?

[zinycor]

Btw, whenever possible, don't use ZoT, use Detect Thoughts. Much better, and versatile.

[Hail Tempus]

ZoT isn't a great spell for figuring out someone's intentions or trying to predict future actions. That's way too subjective and beyond the scope of a 2nd level spell. It's geared towards getting answers to past events:

"Did you stab the Baron?"
"Have you taken gold from Lord Doomevil in exchange for giving him information about our defenses?"
"Did you steal the Holy McGuffin?"

Those are all questions that work under a ZoT because they deal with objective facts. As a DM, I'd rule that the spell doesn't work when it comes to future events. If you want to make characters do something, Geas or Mass Suggestion is the spell you're looking for.

[Unoriginal]

Really? As I see it, this is a very civil forum, people are often nice and receptive. What are your problems with it?

I don't think me spitting that old black bile of mine would be very appropriate, and it would definitively not be fruitful.

I guess the most polite way to put it is I grew exhausted and infuriated with people endlessly repeating the same claims about 5e as if they were facts, when they were at best without factual evidences and at worse outright bare-faced lies, not to mention the endlessly repeating same arguments about whatever from alignments to how X thing isn't realistic.

I figured if I could neither enjoy the situation nor make a positive difference, I had no reason to stay.

[Sigreid]

I don't think me spitting that old black bile of mine would be very appropriate, and it would definitively not be fruitful.

I guess the most polite way to put it is I grew exhausted and infuriated with people endlessly repeating the same claims about 5e as if they were facts, when they were at best without factual evidences and at worse outright bare-faced lies, not to mention the endlessly repeating same arguments about whatever from alignments to how X thing isn't realistic.

I figured if I could neither enjoy the situation nor make a positive difference, I had no reason to stay.

Totally understandable. While sometimes guilty of these sins, I have myself gone from reading nearly every thread, to commenting on lots of threads, to not even reading very many threads.

[zinycor]

I don't think me spitting that old black bile of mine would be very appropriate, and it would definitively not be fruitful.

I guess the most polite way to put it is I grew exhausted and infuriated with people endlessly repeating the same claims about 5e as if they were facts, when they were at best without factual evidences and at worse outright bare-faced lies, not to mention the endlessly repeating same arguments about whatever from alignments to how X thing isn't realistic.

I figured if I could neither enjoy the situation nor make a positive difference, I had no reason to stay.

Oh, ok then, see you later.

[KorvinStarmast]

DMs, how would you rule enforcing a player's vow made under a Zone of Truth?
1. Do you punish a player for getting a divorce after a shotgun wedding?
2. Are you trying to equate the power of Zone of Truth to that of Geas?

[Brookshw]

I don't think me spitting that old black bile of mine would be very appropriate, and it would definitively not be fruitful.

I guess the most polite way to put it is I grew exhausted and infuriated with people endlessly repeating the same claims about 5e as if they were facts, when they were at best without factual evidences and at worse outright bare-faced lies, not to mention the endlessly repeating same arguments about whatever from alignments to how X thing isn't realistic.

I figured if I could neither enjoy the situation nor make a positive difference, I had no reason to stay.

I tend to avoid the 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder subforum for a similar reason. For myself, being selective in which threads I want to involve myself has been the solution. To each there own though.

[OverLordOcelot]

Zone of truth someone affected by it from making a statement that isn't true, it doesn't compel future actions. Compelling a vow is what you need something like Gaes for. in general, it's only really functional for direct questions, the idea of using it to compel future actions gets really weird and incoherent really fast. I especially wouldn't try to use it for that on PCs because you're just encouraging semantic arguments, and probably one or the other or both of you will feel like someone's cheating, and any disagreement essentially requires you to accuse the player of lying.

For example, this exchange should work fine in zone of truth even though it's breaking a vow:
"Do you promise/swear/vow to retrieve the Sword of Swordiness and return it to Lord Lordington?"
"Yes, I promise/swear/vow to do that," while thinking "lol yeah, right, that sword is mine!" or "lol, as soon as I'm on the road I'm leaving this kingdom and never going near your stupid sword or lord".

Why is that? Because the actual question asked is whether the character promises to do X, and the character made the promise right there, that's factually correct. The questioner would need to also ask 'do you intend to uphold this promise' to even get at what you're looking at, and then you start probing into messiness.

Also, the people saying that 'if they're a paladin, they should lose their paladinhood' are making a bad call. If the paladin's class oath includes following any promises then sure, they've violated it, but most of the paladin oaths don't include that. A vengeance paladin, for example, might very well have the opposite - if he is sworn to destroy major evil by any means necessary, then making a promise he doesn't intend to keep is an obligation of his oath if it helps him destroy a major evil, not a voilation of it.

[Man_Over_Game]

@Ocelot, not sure if you read an older version of the OP, but the updated version DOES include a clause that mentions the player having to say they intend to keep their promise.

The thread itself isn't about ZoT, and how to wiggle out of it. It's about asking DMs what they would do when there IS a conflict.

[zinycor]

@Ocelot, not sure if you read an older version of the OP, but the updated version DOES include a clause that mentions the player having to say they intend to keep their promise.

The thread itself isn't about ZoT, and how to wiggle out of it. It's about asking DMs what they would do when there IS a conflict.

Look, ZoT isn't a good spell for the purposes you want, you will want something like geass in order to bind someone into an oath or detect thoughts in order to really determine someone's intent beyond doubt.

[PhantomSoul]

Look, ZoT isn't a good spell for the purposes you want, you will want something like geass in order to bind someone into an oath or detect thoughts in order to really determine someone's intent beyond doubt.

(And for Geas, it's more blackmailing them into following your instructions than compelling them to want to do it, if that difference matters. It probably doesn't, though, given the OP-desired use of Zone of Truth. But blackmail is already better than "you're magically unable to do otherwise" anyhow; easier to adjudicate, and they can choose to go against the Geas at a cost.)

[Man_Over_Game]

Look, ZoT isn't a good spell for the purposes you want, you will want something like geass in order to bind someone into an oath or detect thoughts in order to really determine someone's intent beyond doubt.

I know it isn't, I'm asking for the sake of how users of the spell can expect it to work.

I doubt that everyone in a world of magic is hit with the Stupid Stick when it comes to magic. Some people know what Friends can do. Some people know that there are familiars out there who might be spying on you, or that the world's strongest wall isn't going to stop the Fly spell. Some people might actually plan around using magic to solve problems like court systems, feeding the poor, things like that, and Zone of Truth fits in with a lot of justice-related activities. Players might use ZoT once, but how often would a judge or an investigator use it? Probably enough to know its limitations, right?

Ignore what it is I am trying to force my players to do (kill puppies, I think, if I'm reading the room appropriately). What happens?

And even though some people have answered it in probably the best way possible (either the character was able to weasel out an appropriate response, or the player lied and needs to be treated like someone who intentionally broke DnD rules), I'm still fishing for any other possible interpretations. More information is rarely worse than less.

But, in case it's not clear enough, and someone skims over the thread:
*takes deep breath*

"I'M NOT PLANNING TO RAILROAD MY PLAYERS"

(Not upset at you, or even at all, this just happens to be something I've been trying to get across for 4 pages now, and it keeps getting in the way of discussion.)

[patchyman]

Do you stop the player from what he said in the middle of the investigation because there's a chance he might be lying (which you might not be certain of), or is the player not allowed to cast Fireball?

Why don’t you just explain to the players how the spell works before the investigation starts?

[Sigreid]

I know it isn't, I'm asking for the sake of how users of the spell can expect it to work.

I doubt that everyone in a world of magic is hit with the Stupid Stick when it comes to magic. Some people know what Friends can do. Some people know that there are familiars out there who might be spying on you, or that the world's strongest wall isn't going to stop the Fly spell. Some people might actually plan around using magic to solve problems like court systems, feeding the poor, things like that, and Zone of Truth fits in with a lot of justice-related activities.

Ignore what it is I am trying to force my players to do (kill puppies, I think, if I'm reading the room appropriately). What happens?

And even though some people have answered it in probably the best way possible (either the character was able to weasel out an appropriate response, or the player lied and needs to be treated like someone who intentionally broke DnD rules), I'm still fishing for any other possible interpretations. More information is rarely worse than less.

But, in case it's not clear enough:
*takes deep breath*

"I AM NOT TRYING TO RAILROAD MY PLAYERS"

(Not upset at you, or even at all, this just happens to be something I've been trying to get across for 4 pages now, and it keeps getting in the way of discussion.)

For how it fits into the world, I could see it being immensely valuable in a couple of areas:

1. Turn justice over to the god of truth/justice/honor. Questioning of witnesses is done under the influence of a zone of truth. If the witness makes their savingthrow their testimony is invalid.

2. Two friendly nations may agree to negotiate with each other inside a zone of truth as a sign of mutual good faith.

3. A crime lord can use it exactly as in number 1 to ensure people aren't trying to put one over on him.

4. a merchant may have his store enchanted with a zone of truth and advertise how honest his business is. This could also keep people from selling him dodgy goods.

5. A slave owner may periodically use it to ensure his slaves aren't deceiving him.

6. All manner of civil disputes may be able to be resolved easily when those with the dispute can't lie.

Just a few off the top of my head.

[Demonslayer666]

Nope. "I promise X" is always true, because you are indeed promising X. Not intending to keep the promise does not make the statement less true.

It's the same principle as the old logical paradox "this statement is a lie", in reverse.

If the person said "I promise X and I'll keep my promise", then it could be true or false.

The *promise* could be completely worthless, but the statement that the promise is being made is true, and the ZoT only care about the veracity of the statement.

No, it is only always true about weather or not that is a promise, and that has nothing to do with lying or telling the truth.

Promising something you have no intention of doing is lying. (if it's a promise is irrelevant)

Promising something you intend to do is telling the truth. Whether or not you keep that promise is irrelevant.

[Crgaston]

The intent here is less about forcing players to do something. It's more about keeping a faction informed on the limitations of Zone of Truth. Considering how powerful of a spell it is, you'd think that most factions would know how the spell works. I'm just a guy on the internet, talking about a spell in a made up game. How much research do you think someone would do if it was their life?

It'd be dumb if someone put up a Zone of Truth, compelled someone to make a promise, had that promise be broken, and them be all like "Well, darn, why didn't we think of that?"

So it's not about forcing someone to do something, it's about people who use it knowing whether it can.



, I have plans to have my players get their identities erased to keep them alive for a crime they committed. Magic Aura to make them harder to detect via Divination magic. Spreading lies about their death so that Legend Lore fails to provide insightful information. Lastly, a Zone of Truth to get them to agree to the terms of the identity wipe (or they get kicked into a pit of death, the faction in question is the one that's supposed to be killing them) If the Zone of Truth can't force someone to make a promise, why have it at all?

I think the faction you mention would know that compelling someone to keep a promise is not within the power of ZOT. They would know that they would need to use Geas for a stronger effect. Even then, Geas dosn't compel obedience, just sets a consequence for failure to do so.

[JNAProductions]

Haven't read past the first page, but here's what I would do as a DM.

While the PC is in the Zone of Truth, talk to the player and tell them "Does your character actually intend to do their best to uphold this vow? Remember, you can't lie while under the effects of this spell. If you do say 'Yes, I intend to uphold the vow,' I will straight up reject actions that go against the vow directly, at least unless a catalyst for change has occurred."

Now, I don't think I'd put a PC in this situation to begin with, but it seems a reasonable one. So, I'll propose a more hypothetical, but more specific, situation.

The PCs are to be guarding a monk from a monastery in their journey to the capital city. The head monk casts Zone of Truth and asks the players to step into it, explaining what the spell does if need be. He then asks the players "Will you, if need be, give your life to protect this mission? Do you intend to, to the best of your ability, protect my disciple and see the mission through successfully?"

If they say no, they don't get the mission.
If they say yes, they get the mission, but CANNOT act directly against the mission. They can be somewhat derelict (for instance, upon reaching a city, I certainly wouldn't say "You can't go boozing because you might fail to protect the monk," but I might say "You can't stop the monk from tagging along in case he needs protection,") but only somewhat.

Now, if they later find out the monastery is hellbent on world domination, that's a catalyst for change. They can feel 100% free to change their minds and break the hell out of the vow.

A key reason I think this SPECIFIC scenario is acceptable, while not all might be, is that they can say no to the vow and not face massive consequences. If it's "Agree or die!" then that's a bad sign from the DM. Not necessarily a bad DM, but a bad move on their part.

[zinycor]

I know it isn't, I'm asking for the sake of how users of the spell can expect it to work.

I doubt that everyone in a world of magic is hit with the Stupid Stick when it comes to magic. Some people know what Friends can do. Some people know that there are familiars out there who might be spying on you, or that the world's strongest wall isn't going to stop the Fly spell. Some people might actually plan around using magic to solve problems like court systems, feeding the poor, things like that, and Zone of Truth fits in with a lot of justice-related activities. Players might use ZoT once, but how often would a judge or an investigator use it? Probably enough to know its limitations, right?

Ignore what it is I am trying to force my players to do (kill puppies, I think, if I'm reading the room appropriately). What happens?

And even though some people have answered it in probably the best way possible (either the character was able to weasel out an appropriate response, or the player lied and needs to be treated like someone who intentionally broke DnD rules), I'm still fishing for any other possible interpretations. More information is rarely worse than less.

But, in case it's not clear enough, and someone skims over the thread:
*takes deep breath*

"I'M NOT PLANNING TO RAILROAD MY PLAYERS"

(Not upset at you, or even at all, this just happens to be something I've been trying to get across for 4 pages now, and it keeps getting in the way of discussion.)

I don't get that rant, Did I imply you were railroading your players? All I am saying is that

1. Zone of Truth is an awful spell
2. You are taking its applicattions way outside what is meant to be used for, and, as expected from that, It doesn't work.

Now, many NPCs and PCs could find it useful for many things, but getting to know someone's intentions, or binding them into an oath, Isn't one of them.

At most you would get to know some of the things they plan to do on the immediate future.

[zinycor]

The intent here is less about forcing players to do something. It's more about keeping a faction informed on the limitations of Zone of Truth. Considering how powerful of a spell it is, you'd think that most factions would know how the spell works. I'm just a guy on the internet, talking about a spell in a made up game. How much research do you think someone would do if it was their life?

It'd be dumb if someone put up a Zone of Truth, compelled someone to make a promise, had that promise be broken, and them be all like "Well, darn, why didn't we think of that?"

So it's not about forcing someone to do something, it's about people who use it knowing whether it can.



, I have plans to have my players get their identities erased to keep them alive for a crime they committed. Magic Aura to make them harder to detect via Divination magic. Spreading lies about their death so that Legend Lore fails to provide insightful information. Lastly, a Zone of Truth to get them to agree to the terms of the identity wipe (or they get kicked into a pit of death, the faction in question is the one that's supposed to be killing them) If the Zone of Truth can't force someone to make a promise, why have it at all?

Then... Don't use Zone of truth. Make a custom spell, if you have to. Now, I think this whole idea is awful, But if you HAVE to do it, create a custom spell and call it a day, Zone of truth, definately doesn't apply here.

[Fable Wright]

I doubt that everyone in a world of magic is hit with the Stupid Stick when it comes to magic. Some people know what Friends can do. Some people know that there are familiars out there who might be spying on you, or that the world's strongest wall isn't going to stop the Fly spell. Some people might actually plan around using magic to solve problems like court systems, feeding the poor, things like that, and Zone of Truth fits in with a lot of justice-related activities. Players might use ZoT once, but how often would a judge or an investigator use it? Probably enough to know its limitations, right?

There are four results of any sort of test:

A true positive, where the result you're looking for occurs, and you detect that it did.
A false positive, where the result you're looking for didn't occur, but you detected that it did.
A true negative, where the result you're looking for didn't occur, and you didn't detect that it did.
A false negative, where the result you're looking for did occur, but you didn't detect that it did.

Zone of Truth is a spell that will never generate a false positive. "Did you try to kill the king?" "Yes" "That person killed the king."
It will generate true positives and true negatives.

It may generate false negatives.

Zone of Truth is the best spell in a situation where you require confirmation of suspicions, or are looking for basic background screening. "Have you committed felony level crimes in the past?" is a better question than "are you coming with intent to commit a crime?"

"Have you ever broken a serious oath before?" If the answer is no, then you let them go with a serious oath. If the answer is yes, Geas.


Ignore what it is I am trying to force my players to do (kill puppies, I think, if I'm reading the room appropriately). What happens?

You inevitably realize that no matter what you do, the players have free will and cannot, nor should, be forced to do anything.

But. You're trying to measure the intent of living players in a world without magic or mind-reading. And you can't.

In-game, I would run it like an Intimacy from Exalted 3e. You have an intimacy that you can't act against. When someone makes a successful Persuade check against you (DC... I'll call it 10 + your Wis mod for a minor intimacy, 15 + Wis for a major one, 20 + Wis for defining), they can increase or decrease one intimacy level that they are aware of by one.(If someone is acting on their own intimacies, I'd call it a DC 10 + their Cha mod for a defining intimacy, 15 + Cha for major, 20 + Cha for minor, and Zone of Truth would apply Advantage on the check.)

At the end of the session, in this case, I'd say that you can roll an Honor check (or I guess Wisdom check), DC 15. If you succeed, you may increase or decrease one intimacy by one level, or gain/remove a minor intimacy.

If you act in accordance with intimacies, you get Inspiration, to counteract the cost of accepting others' influence over you.

That's the best I got to model what you're trying to push, here. If it don't work for you, I don't know what to tell you.

[Frozenstep]

-snip-

I think this discussion is going in circles because the exact topic keeps wobbling between "players and dm's and rules and balance" and "what do the limitations on zone of truth mean for civilization that has access to it?".

Guess I'll talk on the second topic. A judge/investigator should know it's limits, and do their best to get the spell to be as effective as possible by using yes/no's and listening for weaseling and doubling down when it sounds like a question is being avoided. They should avoid using it to determine the future, but instead try to probe at intents (oh, you want to enter the castle? What is your reason for entering? Ok, good reason. Is that your only reason, or do you have any other reason?). Even then, they should know it's possible to miss things, and also that the world is a big place and zone of truth probably isn't undefeatable, they might even have heard legends about magic items or spells that can defeat it and thus be wary of trusting the spell for high-stakes situations.

One humorous example I can offer is a situation in which me and my party were attempting to enter a city of dwarves, but the border control used zone of truth to verify intentions, and they were currently at war with drow. Our bard was a drow, but we did not want to be separated. But then our bard told us not to worry, and used a disguise kit. When it came down to the guard questioning us...

Guard: Hm...all seems in order. Just one last thing...I can see you seem to have some heavy make-up. Are you perhaps a drow?

Drow Bard: I don't like talking about it and really did not want to admit it but...half my blood is indeed that of a drow.

DM: You're not a half-elf though.

Drow Bard player: Well, yeah, I'm not gonna say the other half of my blood is also drow.

-entire table bursts into laughter-

It ended up working, if only because we really did not have any bad intentions. But yes, in universe it shouldn't be treated as foolproof.

[Solunaris]

I've read through the entire thread, and I have some personal experience with Zone of Truth both as a player and a DM with characters that both acted in good faith and bad faith when faced with the ZoT. I'll start with my perspective as a player who had a character that acted in bad faith when faced with ZoT.

I played a rather clever Sorcerer who had an odd quirk of blow people up that looked at him funny (it was an evil campaign). One time we were entering a city to gather supplied and had to face a ZoT to enter. Standard stuff about smuggling and breach of the peace; and my character legitimately at the time had no desire to cause trouble; I as a player most certainly did. As soon as we left the checkpoint and the guard wished us a safe visit my character turned right around and Fireballed the guardhouse. In this instance all it took for my character's winds to change was the guard speaking to him after so rudely (note, the guard was very polite) thought he could continue talking with my character.

In this instance, I was going to Fireball the guard house no matter what happened here. The DM knew it, the other players knew it, I knew it but my character didn't know it. He did it as a spur of the moment thing as soon as something happened I could justify into him being provoked. The point of this anecdote is that promises to do or not do something in the future are as useful in a Zone of Truth as a wet fart.

Now as a character that participated in a similar situation but in good faith. I was a Paladin this time and had found myself in some rather hot water with the law due to some hero work that didn't exactly jibe with their local laws. After the trial and imprisonment (the whole party was complicit) we were only released on the grounds that we could say the specific phrase "I have no intentions of violating the laws of X city again." Obviously everyone but the Rogue was able to easily repeat the line although our Sorcerer had a novel solution to the problem but that isn't relevant. As a player I really had no intentions to break the laws again and neither did my character. Later in the campaign we found ourselves once again faced with having to break the laws, and our word, in order to be the heroes we needed to be. So my character agonized about it for a moment before deciding to break his word in order to serve the greater good. As a player I had no problem breaking my character's word even though I had given it without future intent to break it.

Finally, my experience as a DM with ZoT and how I treat it in my setting. Since I know how easily ZoT can be circumvented for future actions I never use it to forge promises; only ever to find the truth of a situation. A statement about the future could very easily be true at the time only to become a lie as soon as the Zone of Truth is dropped. And I've seen several instances of the most clever players getting around ZoT with very little effort from the characters. In your specific example, I'll logic around it with a single statement.

NPC: "Do you, player, vow to hold to this promise under the threat of being kicked into this pit of death?"
Player: "Yes, I vow under the threat of death to hold to this promise."

As soon as the threat of being kicked into the pit is lifted the vow is null and void. It was true at the time and the character really did intend to keep the vow so long as they feared for their life even if the player didn't. Once that fear is gone they have no reason, no matter how honorable they are, to keep the vow because the motivating factor that forced them to make the vow no long holds power over them.

In short, it doesn't matter what the player intentions are since your premise is fundamentally flawed when looked at from a character's perspective.

Oh, and as an aside the Sorcerer's novel solution to the Rogue's problem? The Sorcerer cast a Suggestion spell on the Rogue that made him think he had no intentions to further break the laws of the city.

[Cheesegear]

A player is under a Zone of Truth and failed the Saving Throw.

So far, so good.


The player, while under the Zone of Truth, makes a promise to do (or not do) something in the future, and they say they intend to uphold their vow.

Why would the player - who has agency - do that?

"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."

Any player who doesn't want to talk, wont. The player is evasive in their answers and statements for 10 minutes, and the enemies get nowhere.


The player then proceeds to attempt to break the vow they made while under the Zone of Truth.

Specifically, what was the vow, and how did they break it?
Did they break it for the lulz?
Did they break it because circumstances changed, so that undertaking the vow was no longer a good idea? New information has come to light, man.
Did they break it because their vow became unfulfillable?
Did they break it because fulfilling it was never reasonable in the first place?


What happens?

Depends on the deity. A Paladin is the single-most RP-heavy class in the game, both for the player, and the DM.

Do you - the Other Power who grants the Paladin their abilities - consider contracts/oaths/agreements made under coercion or duress to be binding?
Do you - the Other Power - understand that agreements can change based on new information?

Bane is a Lawful entity. But seriously, do you think He'd strip one of his Paladins of their Powers for breaking an Oath that no longer made any sense? Hell no. You keep your Powers. Except Bane also demands that you go decapitate the people who forced you to take an Oath in bad faith (pun unintended).

[SpanielBear]

Coming at this from the angle of “how do you as a DM make your players respect the rules and internal logic of the gam?”... you don’t.

You can’t, really.

That’s a player issue, not a character one. If a player is going to treat the game in a certain way, then things happening in game are a very, very bad way to attempt to control that.

If you have someone at the table who you are having difficulties with, who won’t roleplay in good faith, you have to talk to them out of game, adult to adult. Talk about what both of your expectations are, refer back to session zero, find out if this is something that can be resolved or if you are just incompatible. It happens, no blame to anyone necessarily.

And in the OP’s specific case- well, how well do you know your group? How have they played in the past? Do you trust them to play along with your narrative here?

Because the spell you use doesn’t really matter, what does matter is that the players buy in to the drama of being restricted and controlled in a certain way. For a lot of groups that’s a hard sell, and it doesn’t matter if it’s a zone of truth or mass succubi compulsion that does it- taking away player agency can rankle. But if you think you have the relationship with your players where they like your style and trust you to take them in interesting directions, then give it a try. But this is definitely an out of character consideration.

[zinycor]

Coming at this from the angle of “how do you as a DM make your players respect the rules and internal logic of the gam?”... you don’t.

You can’t, really.

That’s a player issue, not a character one. If a player is going to treat the game in a certain way, then things happening in game are a very, very bad way to attempt to control that.

If you have someone at the table who you are having difficulties with, who won’t roleplay in good faith, you have to talk to them out of game, adult to adult. Talk about what both of your expectations are, refer back to session zero, find out if this is something that can be resolved or if you are just incompatible. It happens, no blame to anyone necessarily.

And in the OP’s specific case- well, how well do you know your group? How have they played in the past? Do you trust them to play along with your narrative here?

Because the spell you use doesn’t really matter, what does matter is that the players buy in to the drama of being restricted and controlled in a certain way. For a lot of groups that’s a hard sell, and it doesn’t matter if it’s a zone of truth or mass succubi compulsion that does it- taking away player agency can rankle. But if you think you have the relationship with your players where they like your style and trust you to take them in interesting directions, then give it a try. But this is definitely an out of character consideration.

I absolutely agree, I know I wouldn't be okay with my character being controlled or restricted in any way.

[Keltest]

Coming at this from the angle of “how do you as a DM make your players respect the rules and internal logic of the gam?”... you don’t.

You can’t, really.

That’s a player issue, not a character one. If a player is going to treat the game in a certain way, then things happening in game are a very, very bad way to attempt to control that.

If you have someone at the table who you are having difficulties with, who won’t roleplay in good faith, you have to talk to them out of game, adult to adult. Talk about what both of your expectations are, refer back to session zero, find out if this is something that can be resolved or if you are just incompatible. It happens, no blame to anyone necessarily.

And in the OP’s specific case- well, how well do you know your group? How have they played in the past? Do you trust them to play along with your narrative here?

Because the spell you use doesn’t really matter, what does matter is that the players buy in to the drama of being restricted and controlled in a certain way. For a lot of groups that’s a hard sell, and it doesn’t matter if it’s a zone of truth or mass succubi compulsion that does it- taking away player agency can rankle. But if you think you have the relationship with your players where they like your style and trust you to take them in interesting directions, then give it a try. But this is definitely an out of character consideration.

I would also add that even if the players are all onboard with the overall game and story, they aren't obligated to be characters in a book youre writing. That you intend and expect them to act in a certain way does not mean they will or should do so. Its their characters, not yours, and its one of the few things a player has control over in a game that the DM doesn't. Messing with player agency just leads to a bad time for everybody, including the DM, so any restrictions need to be the result of their actions and choices rather than you just dropping them in a pit and not letting them out until they do the thing.

Also, as mentioned, Zone of Truth just isn't designed for this at all. The compulsion affect is both weak and ceases to function outside of the zone, so in practical terms it cant be used to decide anybody's future actions. A vow given under it is exactly as strong as a vow given under torture or any other non-magical method of obtaining a vow, so its both unnecessary for that purpose and only useful on people who would already keep a vow made under duress. I don't think anybody who actually regularly used the spell and made an effort to research its limits before hand would believe it would actually work this way unless it was as part of a bluff check on a Lawful Stupid character.

[Brookshw]

In this instance, I was going to Fireball the guard house no matter what happened here. The DM knew it, the other players knew it, I knew it but my character didn't know it. No. You have the agency to control your character and his/her decisions. If you knew at the time you, via the character, made the statement that it was false then that's bad faith on your part. No weaseling out of it claiming player/character dichotomy. It's similar to "that's what my character would do" isn't an excuse to screw over the party/other players at almost any table.




Because the spell you use doesn’t really matter, what does matter is that the players buy in to the drama of being restricted and controlled in a certain way. For a lot of groups that’s a hard sell, and it doesn’t matter if it’s a zone of truth or mass succubi compulsion that does it- taking away player agency can rankle. But if you think you have the relationship with your players where they like your style and trust you to take them in interesting directions, then give it a try. But this is definitely an out of character consideration.

Sounds like you're claiming that players can choose whether they're subject to certain rule. That's a no-go baring session zero agreement about how the game would be run. Here, we're talking mind control or compulsion effects, legitimate rules in the game that players by default are subject and have implied their consented to to when they sat down. I'm not buying that, or that for lots of groups it's a hard sell. Frankly I've never seen a group or player that complained about someone getting hit with an enchantment spell.

Anyway, Man_Over_Game's not launching into this conversation looking for ways to defeat player agency in general so much as discuss specific in game actions of NPCs based on their reasonable motives. He's a reasonable guy and is entitled to some good faith here. Implying that he's treating his players as being "in a book [he's] writing"* is really overblown.

*not SpanielBear's words.

[zinycor]

No. You have the agency to control your character and his/her decisions. If you knew at the time you, via the character, made the statement that it was false then that's bad faith on your part. No weaseling out of it claiming player/character dichotomy. It's similar to "that's what my character would do" isn't an excuse to screw over the party/other players at almost any table.



Player/character dichotomy exist and is a legitimate thing to consider while playing. It is not bad form at all, quite the opposite.

Solunaris played very well and his reasoning was solid.

[False God]

Are you looking for magical effects or social effects?

For the former: nothing. Zone of Turn isn't a long-term "punishment if you mess up" spell like Geas/Quest or Mark of Justice. Failing your save just means you sat on the Wonder Woman's lasso. You're not bound as you can freely leave the circle, you're free to remain evasive or even refuse to answer.

Once you're out, you're out, no more magic.

If you're looking for social effects, then it depends on the setting and the witnesses. Your friends might react poorly, but are probably inclined to be more understanding. Random townsfolk who don't know you would likely be inclined to distrust you. A court of law may imprison you.

But if we're talking a vow between two people in a private space then...nothing.

I mean maybe you could stick a finger in a Paladin or Cleric's eye over it, assuming their god wants to get up in arms over the issue.

TLDR: if you're asking for magical punishment, Zone of Truth lacks the power to do that. If you're looking for in-game social consequences, that's totally your call. If you're looking to enforce roleplay, I'd advise against it.

[Amechra]

I mean, in setting anyone experienced with using Zone of Truth would be aware that statements about the future don't properly have a truth value¹, and would know that asking about intent would only catch bad faith. They'd also know that the best way to use it is to ask simple, straight-forward questions and to ask for clarification on answers. It doesn't compel truth, it just prevents lies 100% of the time.

Of course, whether or not it blocks lies of omission is up to you. As for Glibness, it isn't fully replaced by weasel-wording, since you can't weasel-word your way around a yes-or-no question. Plus, no amount of weasel-wording would let you say "John Q. Innocent over there murdered the king! I saw it with my very own eyes." while under the effects of Zone of Truth.

---

As for PCs getting special narrative rights... they're the main characters, of course they have narrative superpowers. I would say to the player that "oops, I changed my mind 5 minutes later" is lame, and roll things back, though.

¹ Quick, is "It's going to rain next Tuesday" a true or false statement?

[SpanielBear]

Sounds like you're claiming that players can choose whether they're subject to certain rule. That's a no-go baring session zero agreement about how the game would be run. Here, we're talking mind control or compulsion effects, legitimate rules in the game that players by default are subject and have implied their consented to to when they sat down. I'm not buying that, or that for lots of groups it's a hard sell. Frankly I've never seen a group or player that complained about someone getting hit with an enchantment spell.

Anyway, Man_Over_Game's not launching into this conversation looking for ways to defeat player agency in general so much as discuss specific in game actions of NPCs based on their reasonable motives. He's a reasonable guy and is entitled to some good faith here. Implying that he's treating his players as being "in a book [he's] writing"* is really overblown.

*not SpanielBear's words.

You’re right, I don’t think Man_Over_Game is doing that. I do think, however, that what we’re talking about *is* more than normal mind effect and *isn’t* about players refusing to play by the rules.

Because mind control or enchantment is a specifically hostile action, with mechanical rules in place to support it. A player who is dominated and then refuses to attack his fellows would be breaking the rules. Frequently, a DM will tell the player what the controlling entity is making them do, “it tells you to kill the wizard”, and the player is obliged to follow that command. This is a known aspect of the game, covered by the rules and so players normally are okay with it happening (occasionally. By the 20th time in a row they may be getting bored...). Furthermore, the other players know that if they choose there are ways to work around their friend’s plight, and they can choose how to do that. They still have agency.

What’s being talked about here though, if I understand correctly, isn’t mind control. It’s about putting the players in a position where they have to choose a particular option, and see the consequences through. To take the vow and not be able to break it. That’s a bit different, because now the players aren’t having an effect hit them unexpectedly, they are being asked to do it to themselves.

And that’s fine. That’s a reasonable choice to put in front of them. However, what you can’t then control is how they will act going forward- if the player chooses to break an oath, knowing the consequences, then you kind of have to let them. Saying “no, you swore and now you have to always obey” is shutting down roleplay. And if you do go down the route of magically enforcing obedience, that will get boring fast if the characters never have a hope of regaining free will.

I think that last option is extreme, and not what Man_Over_Game is looking to do. I include it though to illustrate why a player finding this style objectionable isn’t necessarily acting in bad faith.

[Nagog]

The problem with that last bit is that it's difficult to tell a player what they are or are not allowed to do based off of a narrative. Was what the player said in the Zone of Truth untrue? Is the player allowed to follow his original plan of breaking the vow? Do you have to retroactively go back in time and change everything to be as if the player spoke the truth in the Zone?

Lots of messy questions, and the only reasonable answer is "Players have immunity to plot-forced mechanics", so the Zone of Truth didn't mean squat. Or rather, it can't, or the whole thing breaks down.

Similarly, you can't show players something that happens to them in the future, because that would force them to be in a circumstance that they can't modify.

I'd bring this in narrative somehow, such as the person who received that oath from the player following up with them on it, or if that character is unavailable, perhaps someone who was present or a representative of the person who they vowed to. You're correct in the sense that you cannot force the player into a course of action, however you can strongly recommend it via in-game enforcement and repercussions for breaking their vow. Perhaps this leads them on a path that puts them at odds with a god of truth (Idk if there are any canon gods of truth, but perhaps Torm could be a good stand-in), who curses them with disadvantage on all deception checks until they restore their word.

[Cheesegear]

I think that last option is extreme, and not what Man_Over_Game is looking to do. I include it though to illustrate why a player finding this style objectionable isn’t necessarily acting in bad faith.

a) Oath of Devotion Paladin (don't lie),
b) Makes a non-specified vow under a Zone of Truth (even though creatures under ZoT know the ZoT is there, and in all games I've played it's been useless because of that stipulation),
c) For a non-specified reason, the Paladin breaks their vow.

So, on the very same page as Oath of Devotion:

A Paladin who has broken their vow typically [seeks penance]...the Paladin starts fresh.
If a Paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious.

Emphasis mine.

I think the premise of the question is actually; Does the Paladin Fall?
The OP is pretty poorly constructed, and perhaps deliberately vague because any discussion of nuance would break 'Yes or No.'

What was the vow, specifically?
Why was it broken?
Does the Paladin care that he broke his vow?
Does the Other Power who grants the Paladin their power, care that the Paladin broke their vow?

As far as I'm concerned, Zone of Truth counts as coercion and probably duress. So no agreements made under it should be binding anyway. Except that we're dealing with a person that specifically derives magical ability from telling the truth, always...In which case, take it up with your Deity.

Breaking an Oath in 5e is pretty meaningless. Paladins don't just Fall on a dime like they used to. All's you have to do is roleplay that your character is sorry, and there are no mechanical consequences. Of course, if you break your Oath repeatedly and often, and continuously follow up with 'Ooopsie. Sorry.' your DM might start calling bull.

[Solunaris]

No. You have the agency to control your character and his/her decisions. If you knew at the time you, via the character, made the statement that it was false then that's bad faith on your part. No weaseling out of it claiming player/character dichotomy. It's similar to "that's what my character would do" isn't an excuse to screw over the party/other players at almost any table.

Yes, I knew the character was going to do it but my character had no inclination that he was going to. And you'll notice that that was the bad faith example I provided to show that a player might be able to lie in a Zone of Truth and have a completely legitimate reason to do so. I, as a player, was lying but my character was telling the truth. For him, lobbing a Fireball into an enclosed spaced with a bunch of level 1 guards was a spur of the moment decision he made because of a minor slight. For me, as a player, it was what I had been planning to do if the opportunity arose. It's like how I, as a player, know that my current Paladin is going to have a crisis of faith at some point in the future while my Paladin currently has no idea he'll break down over some tragic event caused by his Oath.

Also, there is a difference between being disruptive and an ******* while falling back onto "But that is what my character would do" as an excuse and legitimately being able to say that is what he'd do. The difference is that you don't make characters who are disruptive and *******s to the other players, even if they are disruptive and *******s to the other characters.

[lperkins2]

For those people saying to ask only yes/no questions to avoid clever answers: it doesn't work. I mean, sure, if you spring the ZoT on a party, it'll probably work, but if they have time to prepare, it's actually pretty easy to get around. The problem is there is nothing compelling them to answer *the caster's* question. A clever party can arrange for them to answer a *different* question, in the extreme case without even knowing what question the caster asked. Sure, you can make sure they aren't under the effects of the Deafness spell, and you can try to keep the sorcerer out of the room so they can't subtle Message alternative questions for the speaker to answer, but the proper application of ZoT involves short, simple, positive statements. Essentially, you ask yes or no questions, but require the exact question in the answer.

Caster: Are you John Smith.
JS: I am John Smith.
Caster: Did you kill the innkeeper at the inn where you slept last night
JS: I did not kill the innkeeper at the inn where I slept last night

And so on and so forth. Of course, some of that can be obviated by asking if they know any means to defeat the purpose of ZoT, or are enacting such a plan, or similar, since once you establish they are being cooperative it gets much easier.

[Brookshw]

Player/character dichotomy exist and is a legitimate thing to consider while playing. It is not bad form at all, quite the opposite. Qualified? Sometimes. For example characters having in game knowledge that they naturally would have due to familiarity with the world (e.g., it has two moons) or knowledge related to their skill. Unqualified? No. For example, as people have opined in this thread, a player is still accountable for disruptive actions taken at the table by themselves in character, and issues with disruptive play may be taken up with the player.



What’s being talked about here though, if I understand correctly, isn’t mind control. It’s about putting the players in a position where they have to choose a particular option, and see the consequences through. To take the vow and not be able to break it. That’s a bit different, because now the players aren’t having an effect hit them unexpectedly, they are being asked to do it to themselves.


I don't have the same understanding, so perhaps that's the basis for disagreement? What I understand Man_Over_Game to be doing is considering what actions an NPC can do to accomplish a reasonable objective, and tangentially, they're knowledge of achieving that objective. Would that they take actions that they would understand won't accomplish the objective, and if not, what actions would/could they take instead? This strikes me as entirely as a reasonable and doesn't infringe on player agency. If the NPC instead use Geas or something else to accomplish their objective rather than ZoT the players aren't being denied agency, they still have ways to seek to breaking the Geas, and if their actions led them into the situation that, through a chain of effect resulted in the Geas they had their agency to begin with even if the results were unforeseeable. Last, players do still have agency in deciding to submit to a spell rather than be kicked into the pit. Agency doesn't mean you can only be presented with "good" choices. However as I type this I do completely agree with you it's generally in the best interest of an enjoyable game for such situations to be rare in the game and not common occurrence.


Yes, I knew the character was going to do it but my character had no inclination that he was going to. I disagree with your assertion of dichotomy in this instance. Your character's knowledge of whether their statement regarding intent is entirely subsumed by your intent. The character has no independent agency of decision making from the player (absent mind control etc). The bigger issue here is, as discussed up thread, whether the DM really has or should have the capacity to patrol your adherence to your intent. Generally, no, they should take the player's word at face value. Here though you're admitting your word was false making the issue of DM patrol irrelevant. You're intent was to knowingly make a false statement in character when you were prohibited from doing so due to an in game effect.

I agree the conduct in your story doesn't rise to the same level of offense as the "that's what my character would do" scenarios can lead to, so my apologies if it seemed I was implying you were acting as an ******* by your actions. Ultimately this is pretty benign and if everyone got a good laugh, no harm no foul, right?

[Mordaedil]

Having read the thread up to this point, if your players are being a pain in the ass and communicating with them doesn't result in anything, try taking a level away from them and see how they like it.

At worst, you will no longer have a group to run a game for.

[Solunaris]

Having read the thread up to this point, if your players are being a pain in the ass and communicating with them doesn't result in anything, try taking a level away from them and see how they like it.

At worst, you will no longer have a group to run a game for.

This is the absolutely worst advice I have ever seen. Don't do this under any circumstance.

[zinycor]

Having read the thread up to this point, if your players are being a pain in the ass and communicating with them doesn't result in anything, try taking a level away from them and see how they like it.

At worst, you will no longer have a group to run a game for.

Wow, that's the single worst advice ever seen in this forum.

[PhantomSoul]

Having read the thread up to this point, if your players are being a pain in the ass and communicating with them doesn't result in anything, try taking a level away from them and see how they like it.

At worst, you will no longer have a group to run a game for.

That last bit's definitely the goal, isn't it? xD

[darknite]

{Scrubbed}

[Christian]

So after taking this, and all the other responses in, here's the summary:


You CAN say you do not have intentions to do something, then later gain intentions to do the same thing.
You CANNOT say you do not have intentions to do something when you clearly did have intentions and plan on maintaining those intents after the ZoT.
Forcing players into saying or doing specific things isn't a good way to run a game, and because of this, it's better to make exceptions for player-controlled characters than assuming that all ZoT subjects have to follow the same rules/exceptions as players.


Basically, players have narrative superpowers that make them special in order for the game to work right, and it's best to not plan around those superpowers unless there's no other choice.

Makes me think of the Fable games a bit, like "Player" is a special lineage of people.

I went back to this, because I believe it actually touches on the crux of the issue. In fact, the core problem is not that Zone of Truth can't judge intentions; surely, a statement of intention can be true or false regardless of how immutable the intention might be. The core issue is this:

The inner mental states of characters are the one and only thing in the game universe that the gamemaster has no reliable information about.

What this means is that, to some extent at least, adjudication of the impact of a Zot on a PC is inherently in the hands of the player.

Note that this can extend to a number of circumstances other than the kind we're imagining. Eg, an interrogation of the group on leaving a castle where a theft has occurred:

DM, as guard: "Do you know where the Ruby of Rhod is?"
Player, IC: "No, I have no idea."
DM: "Actually, you can't say that; you're in the area of a ZoT, and you were there when Leif the Lightfingered snatched it."
Player, OOC: "Well, yes, my character was there. But she was looking at the tapestries and didn't notice. And she wasn't paying attention when Leif asked us all to help him sneak out with it."

With an NPC, the DM knows what the character knows, believes, hopes, and intends; or is prepared to create facts about those things as needed. But with PCs, she really doesn't. She may have guesses, but it's hard for her to be certain even about what the players know, much less their characters.

As a DM, you hope that characters will jump into the spirit of the ZoT sub-game and make fair rulings. If their rulings are ludicrous, you can enter a dialogue with them about it, just as they might regarding your rulings. But in the end, if the player insists that what their character is saying is what the character sincerely believes is the truth, as a DM, you don't have much choice but to accept it. So in a way, the PCs really are a unique type of subject for this spell, as there is a different final arbiter for their actions than there is for any of the other characters in the world ...

[tKUUNK]

Just don't assume a character knows the truth regarding her own future.

Maybe she will be eaten by an owlbear as soon as she leaves the ZoT, leaving her unable to fulfill any promise made.

Maybe the moment she leaves the ZoT, her honest intentions shift with the changing circumstances (no longer under duress, as others have pointed out).

Yes, ZoT can force disclosure of current intentions, but ...perhaps... the only honest answer to questions regarding the future (including future intentions) is "I don't know".

Really cool question here in any case.

Also note: some chronic liars and oath breakers just don't know themselves. Their sincere heart's truth shifts from moment to moment. So they may lack the self-awareness to recognize whether they intend to uphold a vow.

[KorvinStarmast]

I absolutely agree, I know I wouldn't be okay with my character being controlled or restricted in any way.A cult fanatic casts hold person on you and you miss your saving throw. You going to rebel?

Having read False God's post again, that's a really good take on this.

[Marcelinari]

In my experience, the key to these sorts of problems is to have a clear and honest dialogue with the player, well in advance of the problem occurring. Ask the PC ‘will you strive your hardest to complete the task I just asked of you, even at risk to your own life and limb?’ And allow the PC to answer at their leisure.

Then break character. Look at your player, a friendly acquaintance if not a true friend, and ask them ‘Hey, (player). Was that the truth?’

And then no matter the answer, you trust them. Because if the PC would lie to an NPC, then that’s a game. But if your player would lie to you, the GM, then they are lying to a friend (or a friendly acquaintance). And if you would distrust your friend, when asked specifically to be truthful, then you have more problems at your table than a Zone of Truth. Trust your player to tell you the truth about their character, and if any future actions disprove that, give your player the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps remind them that they told the truth previously, but do not hold them to their oath. Do not punish them for changing their mind. But always, always, trust your player when you have asked them to tell you the truth.