Long title is long.
Also, that's some inception stuff right there.
Are you lying?
<g>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a drug used in Galt (IIRC), used by executioners to make people say what they think the questioner wants to hear. You could use that in conjunction and say, "I want to hear 2+2=5. What is 2+2?" (though that's still not foolproof - see fort save). Can't remember the name of it, though.
Or, you could follow Abadar and get a spell one level lower that *does* tell you if it succeeded. Abadar's Truthtelling.
OR, you could bluff them into thinking you don't know something you really know and see if they correct that when you ask "is this correct" (about something embarrassing to them).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abadar is a damn good businessman. Cornered the market on truth-telling magic that doesn't suuuuuuuck.
I don't think it's truly possible. Since NPC interactions are role playing scenarios it won't need to adhere to logic. It will depend on the two characters and of course the player and GM. It might work, but there too many non-logical variables.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unaffectedpersonsaywhat?
Basically is there a logic test you can use to determine if someone is incapable of lying or just lying about being incapable of lying?
No. because remaining silent remains an option.
|
You can cast Abadar's Truthtelling instead... it's designed to avoid the conundrum in the first place.
The problem with coming up with a logical trap designed to identifiy a liar is that just because someone makes the save they're not required to avoid telling the truth. Basically what Loren said upthread.
|
Discern lies is a useful double check but it has the same problem in that it allows a save. Also, zone of truth has a relatively short duration, so a target who knows a little about spellcraft can talk it out and then spring a lie on you after 3 minutes/5 minutes/whenever the spell runs out if he is keeping better track than you are.
What you can do instead is ask your questions before you cast the zone of truth and when you're done with the questioning, cast zone of truth and ask, "at any point during this questioning, did you lie to me?" and "what specific answers were lies? And what was the true answer?" If you explain what you are going to do up front, the target knows that, unless they make their save, you will catch any lies that they tell... and it will probably prove to be a very unpleasant experience for them. Doing so allows you to share the burden of uncertainty (if you cast zone of truth and question, you don't know whether they made their save, but they do; in this scenario, neither of you know whether or not they will make their save). It might also give a sense motive bonus to catch lies because not knowing whether or not they will make their save will tend to make the target nervous.
I will also note that you know whether or not the target of speak with dead made their save and therefore whether they answer truthfully (and furthermore the spell compels a truthful answer if successful). A number of my characters have found that sharing this fact makes living subjects much more cooperative with interrogation. And if they're not, there are usually plenty of dead subjects around for interrogation. And for the more "gray area" characters, it's pretty easy to turn an uncooperative zone of truth subject into a cooperative speak with dead subject.
You could always ask them if they made their save or not.
You could always ask them if they made their save or not.
Players and GMs think in those terms, I don't think the characters do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Dammit guys, I think I just failed a Will save!"
You could always ask them if they made their save or not.Players and GMs think in those terms, I don't think the characters do.
"Are you affected by this spell?"
-or-"Can you tell lies without be knowing right now?"
You could always ask them if they made their save or not.
Person who failed their save: "No."
Person who made their save: "No."
"Are you affected by this spell?"
-or-
"Can you tell lies without be knowing right now?"
Person who failed their save: "Yes."
Person who made their save: "Yes."-Or-
Person who failed their save: "No."
Person who made their save: "No."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh my...others took my suggestion seriously...what do I do now?
Does anyone remember me suggesting we just ask them if they made their save?
Basically is there a logic test you can use to determine if someone is incapable of lying or just lying about being incapable of lying?
since the person could still let the truth even if under the zone of control and the zone of control doesn't impose factual truth only truth as you know it, I'd say this is simply impossible.
like, even asking them if they made heir save could they still lie? doesn't work, simply because the guy who made the save can lie and truth tell as he pleases, he isn't forced to lie.
if he was, then you could ask, if you can lie right now and if you had made the save could you lie? followed by a question of the reverse.
but like i said, this doesn't work since the liar can just tell the truth.
Though, the truth teller wouldn't respond to the first question, or at-least is incapable, could throw people off.
You have to rely on what Fruian and Grandlounge wrote.
(And just my 2cp: the spell sucks and can be counted as useless. Most divination spells do...and while I understand the reason for this, I am of the opinion they should simply have removed the unwanted spells completely or made them useful instead of sitting between two chairs.)
How about this question: "Can you lie to me? I will beat you severely if you do not answer 'Yes'."
In other words, give the interrogatee a very strong incentive to lie if he can.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about this question: "Can you lie to me? I will beat you severely if you do not answer 'Yes'."
In other words, give the interrogatee a very strong incentive to lie if he can.
Eh. Anyone accused of anything serious will probably be willing to take a beating to 'prove' their innocence.
Also there's the whole 'beating innocent people' thing, which is pretty Evil.
Ask them a question that they would never, ever tell the truth about, and which you can check the answer easily enough or already know the answer. If your campaign includes true names, that's a solid choice.
Nah. They can easily say "I'm not going to tell you that."
Which proves nothing, since Zone of Truth doesn't compel speech, and the innocent and guilty alike will refuse to do this.
What their plan for tomorrow is when you know they're planning an assassination is also a good move.
Not really. Unless you know that and they don't know you know it. That might catch them as having succeeded. But a smart villain could come up with something technically true but not a confession and use it either way...at which point you've got nothing.
I'm not going to stop cutting until you tell me your middle name is Alberta. *YMMV
Nope. They can refuse to do that either way. And spit in your face. Sure, theoretically they break eventually under torture...but if they never say it how can you tell the difference between them having failed the save and them being tough?
Besides, most people take hours to break under torture. You have maybe 10 minutes.
Also, obviously, this is an extraordinarily Evil act.
a zone of truth on a torture happening is actually pretty crazy, because it's like, really accurate, they'd want to say something but can't lie like normal, if they are unable to ever answer the question then you know they know nothing.
this would have to be more than a mere beating though.
if they ever say "I won't tell you that", well, now you know they know something and it's only true for right now.
you could even torture them and ask them to tell you a banana is an orange, if they ever do it, you know it doesn't effect them. If they say nothing you keep going.
IF THEY NEVER ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS YOU DON'T STOP, because they probably failed their save.
Nope. They can refuse to do that either way. And spit in your face. Sure, theoretically they break eventually under torture...but if they never say it how can you tell the difference between them having failed the save and them being tough?
Besides, most people take hours to break under torture. You have maybe 10 minutes.
Also, obviously, this is an extraordinarily Evil act.
the short duration is actually good, because this means you can keep casting new ones so if they answer your question, they have to answer it 10 more times under different zones of truth. If they answer the question, they get a breather as a reward until the next zone of truth.
they will have to answer the same way multiple times for it to be believeable.