When such a thing exists as a way to generate absolute proof bob should have no issue with standing in a zone of truth and defending himself. Yes we could have found a non lethal alternative but not a feasible one. The Prince being tipped off or innocents dying. And him leaving would have led to us dying. But if he refused to tell us the truth then for the greater good we would do what needed to be done. Had recently tried to kills us twice and we captured him which is why he was being questioned. He was high up in the command structure of the evil prince.
#BARD ZONE OF TRUTH 5E HOW TO#
This is much closer to interrogating a terror suspect to find out the other members and leader of the cell, where they operate and how to take them down without incurring innocent casualties or repercussions. You are trying to get the truth from the guy to work out how to beat the evil dictator. There is just so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start.
Now, anyone who hasn't witnessed your evidence has to take your word against his, so you would likely lose any and all support of other vigilantes or other citizens who believe his lies, but you would not be judged as harshly on a universal scale because you have at least established that you have grounds to believe in his guilt.
If the party did have certain knowledge he was part of the oppressive party, it becomes more of a CN act (still chaotic, as you are blatantly going against all laws, even ones that are more general and not part of an evil regime, but being forced to extract information from a known villain falls into more gray territory than the blatant evil of torturing a mere suspect for information).īasically by omitting the information, you created a totally different scenario. Based on the information that was provided (a rogue with excessively high Bluff, which would lend itself to covering his tracks), the leap to a vigilante torture and possible murder seemed incredibly CE because there was a lack of evidence that this person was actually a villain. Zone of Truth even without them submitting to it proves more than if you didn't have the spell at all.Īs I said, this is an example of information that changes the scenario that you failed to supply before. On top of the fact EVERY situation you gave beats Mundane questioning. Most cases where you would use zone of truth will be situations where they have information you need to know and you have them there captured or willingly and need to get information from them. You are basically pointing out every single edge case that exists and calling it the norm. So even without them actually standing there and answering the questions it determines a level of guilt. So in fact publicly or semi publicly it would work even better! If they refuse or move out its basically telling the public they are lying to them when they could easily prove 100% they are innocent. You can bet your ass if it existed in the real world it would be used in every single court case.) And is very very plausible to see it in use by law enforcement frequently. It's a low level spell with no costly components. In this world zone of truth determines truth. (What you're basically saying is in real world terms a criminal decides that they don't want to give their fingerprints to see if they match the ones on the gun for 'ideological' reasons or because there are people around or because they decide they don't want to and therefore doesn't have to or they can just walk out of the police station because keeping them there is a 'contrived' situation. If they refuse it's still an omission of guilt and you can take further steps if necessary to prove their guilt. If they do have something to hide they will refuse. If they don't have anything to hide then they will have no issue standing there and answering and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt with no error they are innocent in the privacy of a room with just the cleric if need be.
In fact your situations there are the contrived one xD No it works in almost any and every situation that someone has something to hide.
0 kommentar(er)
