| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerrer with the rakshasha bloodline has what you're looking for my friend!
Those in a ZoT know they're affected, so they can talk around questions until duration ends. Still or silent metamagics help.
Don't speak.
The simplest way, and the way the best liars get away with it in real life, is to believe the lie you're telling is the absolute truth at the moment you are telling it, then not believe it after.
Just noticed glibness is a bard spell. See if your DM will let you weave the spell into your answer with a bluff or spellcraft check.
The simplest way, and the way the best liars get away with it in real life, is to believe the lie you're telling is the absolute truth at the moment you are telling it, then not believe it after.
Pathfinder magic accounts for this. It doesn't matter if *you* believe something. Most effects go after umbrellas of information such as "deliberate falsehoods."
Notsonoble has got the right of it. You can be truthful and not directly answer a question, but rather talk around it. You can't actually lie, but you can be very ambiguous with any answers you give, or you can remain silent. A zone of truth doesn't forcibly make you tell the truth, it simply prevents you from deliberately lying.
|
Also, Glibness only has a somatic component and is a standard action to cast. You would just need a sleight of hand roll to disguise the finger waving. If you cast it using still spell, you can cast it while ties up just by taking a second before answering. It would be undetectable by anything except someone specifically looking at you with detect magic, and they wouldn't see anything except a faint aura appear. You would need Analyze Dweomer to actually detect the spell and know what it was.
The simplest way, and the way the best liars get away with it in real life, is to believe the lie you're telling is the absolute truth at the moment you are telling it, then not believe it after.Pathfinder magic accounts for this. It doesn't matter if *you* believe something. Most effects go after umbrellas of information such as "deliberate falsehoods."
Here's the text for the spell:
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.
Note the part I bolded. Then note the method I stated is that you believe what you are saying is true when you say it. That is neither a deliberate nor intentional falsehood; that is speaking the truth as you, at that particular moment, know it.
Edit: Actually, it can be argued the method I talked about is accounted for via the Will save. So, I'll admit this method may actually not be the best and most GMs probably won't allow it without making the save.
If they have you alone and want to interrogate you it's unlikely you will be able to acitvely lie and have them not know it. Heck, if I were an interrogator I would make sure to check you for any active magical auras and dispel them all, make sure you didn't have any eqiupment available. I probably wouldn't even bother with a zone of truth either.
I would cast charm person on you. Or a heightened charm person if necessary. And then ask you kindly and gently to tell me everything you know.
The simplest way, and the way the best liars get away with it in real life, is to believe the lie you're telling is the absolute truth at the moment you are telling it, then not believe it after.Pathfinder magic accounts for this. It doesn't matter if *you* believe something. Most effects go after umbrellas of information such as "deliberate falsehoods."Here's the text for the spell:
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.Note the part I bolded. Then note the method I stated is that you believe what you are saying is true when you say it. That is neither a deliberate nor intentional falsehood; that is speaking the truth as you, at that particular moment, know it.
What you're trying to describe is lying. If you know the truth then you know the truth and as such would be forced to say it or nothing if you failed the save against zone of truth. Now, if you had been told that Orcs can fly your whole life and for some reason had never encountered any reason to believe that such information was less than accurate then you could tell an individual that "Orcs can fly" while in a zone of truth and be not lying. But "convincing" yourself that something is the truth and resumming the correct understanding afterwards is not allowed nor is it simulated by the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would cast charm person on you. Or a heightened charm person if necessary. And then ask you kindly and gently to tell me everything you know.
A charmed person is not prevented from lying. Friends tell other friends 'white lies' all the time. Maybe there's information that you don't want your closest friends to learn about, due to embarressment or any other reasons, so you lie about it. As long as that person isn't directly negatively affected by the lie, its not necessarily unfriendly to lie to a friend, depending on what the lie concerns. Charming someone is no guarantee that they will speak the truth.
Note the part I bolded. Then note the method I stated is that you believe what you are saying is true when you say it. That is neither a deliberate nor intentional falsehood; that is speaking the truth as you, at that particular moment, know it.
Edit: Actually, it can be argued the method I talked about is accounted for via the Will save. So, I'll admit this method may actually not be the best and most GMs probably won't allow it without making the save.
Hmm. Not so sure I'd be a nice GM about this one. You'd have to have someone charm you, or something similar, for you to *actually* believe something you otherwise know is a lie. Use magic to beat magic is how things generally work in Pathfinder and that would bleed into my style.
A charmed person is not prevented from lying. Friends tell other friends 'white lies' all the time. Maybe there's information that you don't want your closest friends to learn about, due to embarressment or any other reasons, so you lie about it. As long as that person isn't directly negatively affected by the lie, its not necessarily unfriendly to lie to a friend, depending on what the lie concerns. Charming someone is no guarantee that they will speak the truth.
You're not merely a friend with charm person.
trusted friend and ally
This isn't some guy you catch a beer with once in a while.
Your point about white lies is valid, yes. However, to say you would conceal important facts from a trusted ally when questioned directly is a bit of a stretch.
Mechanically, the diplomacy DC becomes 10(friendly)+cha mod+10(reveal secrets). In most cases that's less than a 25 DC. Most any cha-based face PC can beat that with a take 10 at level 1 without magic. Even for requests that could lead to them being harmed the DC only goes up by 5. You can say it'd be "or more" but if I, as a GM, were to catch you telling the same kind of things to party members I would call you out on it and retcon the situation as clearly you do share that info with trusted friends.
What you're trying to describe is lying. If you know the truth then you know the truth and as such would be forced to say it or nothing if you failed the save against zone of truth. Now, if you had been told that Orcs can fly your whole...
You caught my post before my edit, where I addressed that. Here's my edit:
Edit: Actually, it can be argued the method I talked about is accounted for via the Will save. So, I'll admit this method may actually not be the best and most GMs probably won't allow it without making the save.
Hmm. Not so sure I'd be a nice GM about this one. You'd have to have someone charm you, or something similar, for you to *actually* believe something you otherwise know is a lie. Use magic to beat magic is how things generally work in Pathfinder and that would bleed into my style.Note the part I bolded. Then note the method I stated is that you believe what you are saying is true when you say it. That is neither a deliberate nor intentional falsehood; that is speaking the truth as you, at that particular moment, know it.
Edit: Actually, it can be argued the method I talked about is accounted for via the Will save. So, I'll admit this method may actually not be the best and most GMs probably won't allow it without making the save.
That's actually pretty reasonable. I can't argue against it ^^ All I was going was suggesting a method ;)
Now, I am going to bow out; I've derailed too many threads by accident and it's beginning to make me look like an intentional derailer :/
If it is utterly important that they lie, roll for the saving throw behind the screen. ;)
It's tougher for me because my players use Abadar's truthtelling, so they always know if the person they're interrogating is under the effects of the spell.
If it is utterly important that your players simply not recieve the information they're looking for then refuse to answer the questions.
Finally, if you really need to pass along false information to the player characters you could implant false memories into someone they are going to interrogate with modify memory.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Where were you when the diamond was stolen?"
"That depends, when was the diamond stolen?"
"Last night."
"I was out drinking last night. I walked back to the inn and passed out, and that's where you found me."
"Did you do anything else last night?"
"I relieved myself."
"Anything else?"
"Listen, what are you trying to ascertain?"
"Just answer the question."
"No, you're interviewing me because you aren't sure I did it. At least, that's what I thought until you keep asking 'Anything else? Anything else?' I'm convinced that you've already made up your mind about my guilt, and nothing I do or say is going to convince you otherwise. Thus, my being here, in the Zone of Truth, by my own free will, is nothing but a sham, a cover for your plan to throw me in jail, whether I'm guilty or not. Do you know for a fact I'm guilty?"
(ZONE)"No..."
"You would do best to listen to your own truth. Now let me go."
Like in Wrong John Silver's marvelous post above. Bravo, sir!
"Where were you when the diamond was stolen?"
"That depends, when was the diamond stolen?"
"Last night."
"I was out drinking last night. I walked back to the inn and passed out, and that's where you found me."
"Did you do anything else last night?"
"I relieved myself."
"Anything else?"
"Listen, what are you trying to ascertain?"
"Just answer the question."
"No, you're interviewing me because you aren't sure I did it. At least, that's what I thought until you keep asking 'Anything else? Anything else?' I'm convinced that you've already made up your mind about my guilt, and nothing I do or say is going to convince you otherwise. Thus, my being here, in the Zone of Truth, by my own free will, is nothing but a sham, a cover for your plan to throw me in jail, whether I'm guilty or not. Do you know for a fact I'm guilty?"
(ZONE)"No..."
"You would do best to listen to your own truth. Now let me go."
"Hell no, until you can prove or at least provide some credibility to your innocence."
Golarion isn't America. You're not necessarily innocent until proven guilty. Heck, it's not even necessarily evil to hold someone on the presumption of their involvement until they can provide a credible alibi. We do it all the time in America when we think someone is related to "terrorist plots".
"Hell no, until you can prove or at least provide some credibility to your innocence."
Golarion isn't America. You're not necessarily innocent until proven guilty. Heck, it's not even necessarily evil to hold someone on the presumption of their involvement until they can provide a credible alibi. We do it all the time in America when we think someone is related to "terrorist plots".
"What, your Zone of Truth isn't credibility enough? Then why are we performing this pantomime?"
Ah, but it's not about proving your innocence to people who have already accepted that they won't be swayed. You can't. Everyone knows that. It's making sure that they admit to themselves that they are being duplicitous not only to you, but to themselves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also another method you can use... Do something so manifestly absurd that even if you tell them truth, they'll never believe it.
"So, how did you steal the diamond?"
"Well, first, I put on a tutu and clown make-up. Then I shot a crossbow at window, used a pole to balance-walk across it, ballet danced my way across the room, took three balls out of my top, stuffed the diamond into a ball, tossed them out the window, and then snuck out the window."
"Why would you... Nevermind. And where is the diamond now?"
"A dog grabbed the ball containing it and ran off. I have no idea where the dog currently is."
"... you expect us to believe that a 10,000,000 gp diamond is in the possession of a dog?"
"You're the ones with the Zone of Truth! You tell me if I'm lying!"
"... you're free to go. Please see the local temple about your, er, interesting confession."
Later...
"So, ranger, does your animal companion still have the diamond?"
"Where were you when the diamond was stolen?"
"That depends, when was the diamond stolen?"
"Last night."
"I was out drinking last night. I walked back to the inn and passed out, and that's where you found me."
"Did you do anything else last night?"
"I relieved myself."
"Anything else?"
"Listen, what are you trying to ascertain?"
"Just answer the question."
"No, you're interviewing me because you aren't sure I did it. At least, that's what I thought until you keep asking 'Anything else? Anything else?' I'm convinced that you've already made up your mind about my guilt, and nothing I do or say is going to convince you otherwise. Thus, my being here, in the Zone of Truth, by my own free will, is nothing but a sham, a cover for your plan to throw me in jail, whether I'm guilty or not. Do you know for a fact I'm guilty?"
(ZONE)"No..."
"You would do best to listen to your own truth. Now let me go."
"Hell no, until you can prove or at least provide some credibility to your innocence."
Golarion isn't America. You're not necessarily innocent until proven guilty. Heck, it's not even necessarily evil to hold someone on the presumption of their involvement until they can provide a credible alibi. We do it all the time in America when we think someone is related to "terrorist plots".
Whatever local laws, or the presumption of guilt by any given party is irrelevant if the situation is to respond to any kind of interrogation within the given "zone of truth" spell. I can imagine that this kind of interrogation occurs in every political clime, I'm sure something similar to this discussion occured in Nazi Germany. If the arresting party intends to punish you anyway, based on their beliefs and not based on the truth, why would a 'zone of truth' be used at all. Just execute them and move on to the next case.
Bringing varying political environments into the discussion does not change the basic truth of the discussion - so its completely irrelevant.
Someone in authority that requires popular support to attain would do it if they had nefarious ulterior motives. Think Palpatine.
"Hell no, until you can prove or at least provide some credibility to your innocence."
Golarion isn't America. You're not necessarily innocent until proven guilty. Heck, it's not even necessarily evil to hold someone on the presumption of their involvement until they can provide a credible alibi. We do it all the time in America when we think someone is related to "terrorist plots".
"What, your Zone of Truth isn't credibility enough? Then why are we performing this pantomime?"
Ah, but it's not about proving your innocence to people who have already accepted that they won't be swayed. You can't. Everyone knows that. It's making sure that they admit to themselves that they are being duplicitous not only to you, but to themselves.
"Because you are evading telling us the whole truth. We may sit in a zone of truth, but it does not compulse you to tell us all information we may be interested in. Rather we must sit here and draw it out of you. When you have provided sufficient information to satiate our interests we will deal with you as appropriate for your innocence or guilt."
But really, the whole exercise is sort of silly if you have a high level cleric. If the matter is of sufficient importance your cleric simply communes with a god and asks "Did this person commit X crime?", "Does this person know who commited the crime?", "Does this person know how the crime was commited?", etc. It may not give you all the information, but you can know accurately if the person you have is the person you're interested in for the crime. There are objective ways of knowing someone's guilt or innocence. Though I will grant they do require substantially higher level than the ability to cast zone of truth.
*As an aside, I'm actually having fun with our bit of roleplay here.
It gets interesting when after communing with your gods the answer you recieve is "No".
I think the point is that the guy you're interrogating is telling the truth. He may be bluffing but he's not lying, and he knows he's under a spell.
It is possible to talk around the truth. It is about answering questions but leaving part of the answer to the imagination of the audience.
Somebody ask: wher you at the Rusty Rat tavern the nigth before this one?
You say: It is a dirty place and i prefer to frequent better places than that.
(Yes you were there but since you think it is a dirty place that is what you say)
Sorry, that came out wrong.
I think the point is that he could be avoiding your questions because he is guilty and cannot lie, so he chooses to bluff instead; or he could be avoiding them because he is innocent and is irritated by your behavior.
Either way, you can't be sure, until you commune with your gods.
|
Back when I played Vampire the Masquerade there was a similar power to compel the truth. One player just talked around the question.
"Let me tell you a story" and then proceeds to tell a story that seems like it is answering the question but is in fact a complete fabrication. He would also give partial but truthful answers. "I heard about that diamond but WHEN I heard about it I said only a fool would try to steal it."
He would even prepare for that stuff by randomly saying innocent sounding phrases he could later reference. Once we were in the middle of a murder spree (vampire can get very dark) and he proclaimed "This DJ is playing awesome dance music. We stayed at this club all night." Then later he would reference it. "Look, I said before we stayed at this club all night because I said the DJ was playing awesome music.
Also the previous advice on talking your way around the questioner is useful. Attack them with questions. "Do you have any secrets you do not wish anyone here to know?" "Did you steal the diamond?" "How often do you make treasonous statements?" "Are you still carrying on an affair with the queen?" "Are you still worshipping demons?"
"Hell no, until you can prove or at least provide some credibility to your innocence."
"What, your Zone of Truth isn't credibility enough? Then why are we performing this pantomime?"
"Because you are evading telling us the whole truth. We may sit in a zone of truth, but it does not compulse you to tell us all information we may be interested in. Rather we must sit here and draw it out of you. When you have provided sufficient information to satiate our interests we will deal with you as appropriate for your innocence or guilt."
*As an aside, I'm actually having fun with our bit of roleplay here.
*Absolutely! We're getting into the meat of the challenge. Admittedly, as GM, I'd say that this is where Diplomacy checks would be allowed.
"'Sufficient information to satiate our interests'! Listen to yourself. You don't have a hard rule on what is sufficient, do you? You're playing all this by ear. You're keeping me here because you're unsatisfied with my responses, because I'm not rolling over and pulling a diamond that's not on my person out of my pocket. The only reason what I'm saying isn't sufficient in your eyes is because I'm not saying I did it. What I'm saying isn't sufficient not because you care about justice or the truth. It is insufficient because you are insatiable. The diamond isn't on my person. It isn't in my room. I didn't sell it, I'm not sitting on thousands of gold pieces from its sale. How could I have possibly stolen it?"
Yeah...the whole affair becomes a game of evasion cat and mouse.
Of course, a decently smart individual and experienced interrogator would be aware of these limitations and would drive you to answer yes or no questions and attempt prevent you from trying to talk around the points.
Heck, if I were an interogattor (I would probably be not good, not necessarily evil but not good) I would preface the whole encounter with a statement about how evasion of questions would be taken as an admission of guilt and provide explicit instructions to answer question only with yes or no unless promopted to do otherwise.
The simplest way, and the way the best liars get away with it in real life, is to believe the lie you're telling is the absolute truth at the moment you are telling it, then not believe it after.
This can actually work very well, though maybe not as you thought. Of course, it depends on the situation.
But if you know something that you know you need to remember later, but can't use at this very moment and don't want to risk getting ZoT'd, you might want to write down the information or somehow else store it in a physical sense, and then use Modify Memory to remove it from you mind. Then you can answer what you believe to be completely truthfully while still withholdning what truths they want.
Prince Charming:- You. You can’t lie, so tell me puppet, where is Shrek?
Pinocchio:- Uh, hmm, well, uh, I don’t know where he’s not.
Prince Charming:- Your telling me, you don’t know where Shrek is?
Pinocchio:- It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume that I couldn’t exactly not say that it is or isn’t almost partially incorrect.
Prince Charming:- So you do know where he is?
Pinocchio:- On the contrary. I’m possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably (Prince Charming: - Stop it!) do or do not know where he shouldn’t probably be, if that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t at where I knew he was ...
Gingy: ON THE GOOOOOD SHIP, LOLLIPOP!!
But if you know something that you know you need to remember later, but can't use at this very moment and don't want to risk getting ZoT'd, you might want to write down the information or somehow else store it in a physical sense, and then use Modify Memory to remove it from you mind. Then you can answer what you believe to be completely truthfully while still withholdning what truths they want.
A fairly elaborate method of this is seen in the movie Push.
Great when you are at risk of having your future read based on your intent, or just with any kind of mind-reading situation at all.
Nothing like plausible deniability.
Finally, if you really need to pass along false information to the player characters you could implant false memories into someone they are going to interrogate with modify memory
Now there is an idea, to use modify memory. As far as I am aware, a person can deliberately choose to fail a will save, so why not allow a trusted individual mess with you mind until you literally believe the lie?
Obviously, this solution is very problematic though. You can hardly rely upon it since people usually do not plan on getting caught and interrogated. Also, it would be hard to keep to the plan if you are no longer aware that there was even one in the first place, or you felt tricked. And obviously there is the heavy risk of being manipulated by the spellcaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At what point does the interrogator simply beat the prisoner for being insufferably evasive?
At what point does the interrogator simply beat the prisoner for being insufferably evasive?
Sometimes they're not prisoners. Sometimes it's just two people trying to get to the truth.
If you're going to run a campaign where this is kind of stuff is going to come up then you should be prepared as a DM. You can try and make sure the PCs have some information they would like to keep secret, then walking into a zone of truth may not look so inviting.
I can't imagine more fun at the gaming table when the tables suddenly turn as the mice ask pointed questions of the cat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take Profession (Aes Sedai).
"An Aes Sedai never lies, but the truth she speaks, may not be the truth you think you hear.”
Abadar's truthtelling is another story. It only affects one target.
It is a constant thorn in my side. But, I figure in a campaign where such magicks are common, everybody in there right mind will be prepared and try to counter it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone outside the ZoT could use the Ventriloquism spell to - quite literally - put words in your mouth. You'd have to mime (Bluff) and the assistant would have to recreate your voice (Disguise), but it could be done.
Also in this situation spells like Share Memory and Geas come in handy.
Share Memory
You momentarily link your mind with the target and share a single memory of no longer than 1 minute. You can show the target one of your memories, show the target one of its own memories, or view one of the target’s memories.
You delve into the enemies memories. Short of memories being magically modified you can access their minds.
And with Geas, you could just order them to tell you everything you know about a specific topic.
I share blaphers opinion though. People who are very evasive would meet with jail time and other punishments for not being willing to cooperate with the law.*
*Assuming that interrogations are legal and the system of government has legislated that failing to provide assistance to legal representatives of the justice system is a crime. So basically no Fifth Amendment.
|
"Where were you when the diamond was stolen?"
"That depends, when was the diamond stolen?"
...
This reminds me of that scene from Thank You For Smoking when Nick Naylor is trying to explain to his son about how to win an impossible argument!
This was a spell from Fantasy Flight Games' Midnight campaign setting. This spell I found in one of the supplemental books and I have adapted it to Pathfinder to use it for my Razmiran Priest. If your GM allows 3pp and homebrewed material, this is just what you need. Keep in mind, this spell did originate from a campaign setting for the 3.0 d20 system. I modified it to be useful against discern lies, so if you don't like my addition, feel free to take it out.
Here's the original version just converted to Pathfinder.
Lie
School Enchantment (charm) [mind-affecting]; Level Antipaladin 1, Bard 2, Cleric/Oracle 2, Druid 3, Sorcerer/Wizard 2, Witch 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range Personal
Target You
Duration Instantaneous
Saving Throw None; see text
Spell Resistance No
A lie you speak may be able to convince even listeners who should be suspicious or unwilling to believe you. You gain a +10 bonus on a single Bluff check. The one lie you speak with this spell is immune to the effects of zone of truth even if you failed your saving throw. However, the caster of zone of truth is entitled to a Spellcraft check (DC equal to your Bluff check) to sense the twinge of interfering powers between the two spells and become alerted to the offending lie.
The Bluff check you make is subsumed in the casting of this spell.
Here's the version with my additions.
Lie
School Enchantment (charm) [mind-affecting]; Level Antipaladin 1, Bard 2, Cleric/Oracle 2, Druid 3, Sorcerer/Wizard 2, Witch 2; Tiered Antipaladin 3, Bard 4, Cleric/Oracle 4, Druid 5, Sorcerer/Wizard 4, Witch 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range Personal
Target You
Duration Instantaneous
Saving Throw None; see text
Spell Resistance No
A lie you speak may be able to convince even listeners who should be suspicious or unwilling to believe you. You gain a +10 bonus on a single Bluff check. The one lie you speak with this spell is immune to the effects of zone of truth even if you failed your saving throw. Additionally, you may cast or prepare lie in a higher level spell slot (the level of this spell slot is listed above) to make the one lie you speak with this spell immune to the effects of discern lies. However, the caster of zone of truth or discern lies is entitled to a Spellcraft check (DC equal to your Bluff check) to sense the twinge of interfering powers between the two spells and become alerted to the offending lie.
The Bluff check you make is subsumed in the casting of this spell.
|
It is possible to talk around the truth. It is about answering questions but leaving part of the answer to the imagination of the audience.
Somebody ask: wher you at the Rusty Rat tavern the nigth before this one?
You say: It is a dirty place and i prefer to frequent better places than that.
(Yes you were there but since you think it is a dirty place that is what you say)
Which IMO is a very good example of using the Bluff skill. So check with your GM if he would allow such a use and roll for it ;-)