Toma

Notice that most upvotes allow for the lie detector method, therefore do not compel someone to answer a certain question at all and affirm my claim that the spell is useless

Now the question is, do true statements in regard to a question asked (full formulation) that are a result of the attempt of the one effected by Zone of Truth to not allow some of the truth to be spoken are to be considered a deliberate attempt to hide the truth or should they be regarded as speaking the truth because saying part of the truth regardless of motive is what the spell does.

If the full question is to be regarded with exact formulation the spell becomes very OP and a deliberate attempt to hide the truth is almost anything other than the full truth as known to the one effected.

I saw a comment that made the most sense, the truth is defined by 1) true statement 2) relays on the question that was asked (exact formulation).

That's the best way to cheat on a lie detector test :)

@Draconis ok. So is the correct interpretation of Zone of Truth truthful statements that relate to the question presented by someone else? In that case should the formulation be followed exactly, or if not, how much of the question should be regarded to test if a statement is true or not?

I'm trying to understand which true statements are allowed, if some are not because of what they relate to. "I did not kill" (a chicken) is a true statements but it does not relate to the question he was asked. So if under the spell you don't have to relate to the exact formulation but also can't disregard it completely, how much of a question should you regard?