![]() Or must the answer regard the full question? Here the question was referring to both red and blue and answering only to one part of it would also allow for the following: Is it possible under the effect of Zone of Truth to answer half of a question?.The philosophical discussion is very interesting: End with "Do you know any more relevant information that was not discussed here that would prove your guilt?" (ending the interrogation only if the answer is no) This question is to reveal the existence of information the affected thinks is relevant but was not asked about.Repeat step 2 until the answer is no and no more information that the affected knows is relevant is left unsaid.During a timeframe so short it's not possible change their belief about telling the truth without a reason.) Ask "Will you tell us now the information you kept from us before without withholding any relevant information?" (Another yes or no question that by answering either condemns or compels the affected to keep to the truth, because if they know they're going to withhold information they are unable to say yes because that would require them to believe they will tell the truth.The affected can only hide information if they subjectively think it's relevant). ![]() Ask "Did you hide any information that you think is relevant while answering the last question?" (The question is a subjective yes or no question and refers to the information the affected tried to hide, therefore they have to not answer, or confess hiding information.(The affected can withhold parts of the truth.) Ask a question as specific as possible.In the other case in which one is compelled to answer the question that's presented to them in its exact formulation, there is no way of not telling the truth as long as the interrogator follows a simple algorithm:.In the case that it only prevents one from speaking false statements (as far as they know) but doesn't compel one to answer the question presented to them, they can always detach themselves from it and answer a different question that they ask themselves within their mind (the same technique used against a lie detector machine).So we are talking about when the spell is not resisted. Furthermore, if such resistance could be willingly forgone, any court would condemn immediately any resisting person. We were discussing the use of Zone of Truth as part of a court process.Īs a DM, I think this spell is either always OP or always useless according to its interpretation:Īll cases take into account that the caster knows if the target of the spell resisted the spell, therefore it will not be used in court unless the affected person didn't resist. ![]() They have committed a murder / killing in self defense and will be tried for it and we talked about whether the Zone of Truth is balanced. ![]() Since the podcast plays fast and loose with the rules, the often has exaggerated effects, such as making NPCs suddenly blurt out secrets, but since Merle's player doesn't seem to fully understand any of his other spells, it doesn't really hurt the game balance.I had a very interesting discussion with my players on the effects of the Zone of Truth in D&D 5e. In this question, I mention The Adventure Zone, which is a comedic D&D podcast, because I most strongly associate this spell with the character of Merle Highchurch, their dwarf cleric, who absolutely adores this spell and casts it frequently even when it's not particularly useful. It cannot prevent the targets from making vague or misleading statements or from just refusing to speak at all, and as soon as a target leaves the zone, they are free to lie as much as they want. While this spell is very useful in interrogations, it has its limits. Zone of Truth allows the caster to designate a given area as a "zone of truth" where all creatures are prevented from deliberately lying if they do not pass a charisma saving throw. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |