Violence is always the answer
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
But they gained no information on which door to choose ='(
-
But they gained no information on which door to choose ='(
Barb could simply kill Death-itself if choice was certain death room.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Ask either guard: “If I asked the other guard which door led to the castle, what would they say?” The answer is always the door that leads to instant death; enter the other door.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This doesn’t help the party decide which door to go through at all
-
This post did not contain any content.
I mean, the Barbarian asked the one question and didn’t gain anything from it. Knowing which one is the liar doesn’t… help anymore.
-
Then, rip both of them in half and knock down the safe door so that everyone after you immediately knows the safe route
-
But they gained no information on which door to choose ='(
The Barbarian got what they wanted, which is to have an excuse to rip another head off.
-
Then, rip both of them in half and knock down the safe door so that everyone after you immediately knows the safe route
If you rip them both in half, then two of your party are cursed to be the next two truth/lie guards. Roll for unintended consequences.
-
Time to rip the table, the DM, and everyone’s minifigs in half. It’s rippening time.
-
Barb could simply kill Death-itself if choice was certain death room.
Opening the certain death door reveals a guy in a dark robe with a scythe: “Hey, what’s up?”
-
Time to rip the table, the DM, and everyone’s minifigs in half. It’s rippening time.
[sings]: I’d like to rip the world in half / for perfect disharmonyyyy!
-
This post did not contain any content.
For years, I had my own headcanon for the Labyrinth movie. In the scene, the young Sarah correctly solves the riddle, passes through the correct door, says “This is a piece of cake!” and then she immediately falls down a pit of doom. This confused me, because she got the answer right. So I reasoned that the guards were both liars, and because they both participated in explaining the rules, they were lying about the rules.
It was only a few years ago that I read in an interview that the Labyrinth (or Jareth) dropped her down the hole because she said it was a piece of cake. It was her arrogance that set her back, not that she got the riddle wrong.
But now it still bothers me that the liar, whichever one he is, helps explain the rules of the scenario. If he always lies, then she can’t trust that either of them ever tells the truth. The rules have to be described separately, like on a sign or by a disinterested third party. Or you could phrase it differently, like “One of us will answer your question truthfully, and one of us will answer your question dishonestly.” That way you avoid saying that they always lie, and specify that the lie will only be in response to the one question.
Fuck, I’ve had too much coffee. How the fuck did I get up on this soapbox? Why are you still reading? Go do something productive.
-
The guard replies “I don’t know for sure”.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Alternate solution:
-
For years, I had my own headcanon for the Labyrinth movie. In the scene, the young Sarah correctly solves the riddle, passes through the correct door, says “This is a piece of cake!” and then she immediately falls down a pit of doom. This confused me, because she got the answer right. So I reasoned that the guards were both liars, and because they both participated in explaining the rules, they were lying about the rules.
It was only a few years ago that I read in an interview that the Labyrinth (or Jareth) dropped her down the hole because she said it was a piece of cake. It was her arrogance that set her back, not that she got the riddle wrong.
But now it still bothers me that the liar, whichever one he is, helps explain the rules of the scenario. If he always lies, then she can’t trust that either of them ever tells the truth. The rules have to be described separately, like on a sign or by a disinterested third party. Or you could phrase it differently, like “One of us will answer your question truthfully, and one of us will answer your question dishonestly.” That way you avoid saying that they always lie, and specify that the lie will only be in response to the one question.
Fuck, I’ve had too much coffee. How the fuck did I get up on this soapbox? Why are you still reading? Go do something productive.
Go do something productive.
No.
-
“So, you’re telling me I could have just greater restoration’d the guards rather than killing them? My god isn’t going to like this.”
-
I mean, the Barbarian asked the one question and didn’t gain anything from it. Knowing which one is the liar doesn’t… help anymore.
Ah. Normally I see this with no limit on questions. You’re right. It’d only work with at least two questions.
-
I’m a fan of the revised Little Mermaid song: https://youtube.com/watch?v=fcbazH6aE2g
-
I’ve only heard it with one question, that’s the whole point. Otherwise you just ask a guard some trivial question (e.g. What color is the sky?) to determine which is the liar, then just ask which is the safe door.
The whole point is to get the information you need from a single question.
