Want to create a trial, but zone of truth makes all trials simply retelling the event

[Kafana]

I want to have a trial (in a mage academy no less), but I feel that with the presence of the zone of truth spell at such a low level the trial will simply be retelling of the events that lead to the trial.

Is there any logical reason why an archmage wouldn't have zone of truth be cast on the accused during the trial (as well as on the witnesses)?

[Sian]

remember ... Zone of Truth doesn't magically make the truth be said, but what the character believes is the truth. And IIRC it doesn't make them actually say something, just not lie (against knowing better)

[jaydubs]

Zone of truth allows a will save. And apparently, there's no way for someone other than the creature making the save to know if it succeeded. For that, take a look at Touch of Truthtelling, which confirms whether someone is affected.

But, while you can't outright lie, you can mislead. You might allow a bluff roll to try to tell partial truths and lies of omission without anyone noticing.

For instance, someone might be able to say "I didn't stab the guard with my sword." In fact, he might have stabbed the guard with his dagger. Or someone else's sword.

"I didn't take the amulet." In fact, his accomplice took the amulet. Or he destroyed the amulet.

"He was my best friend. Why in the world would I kill him?" Not actually a denial of killing anyone.

It could be interesting, but only if you have players that would take part in that kind of careful wordplay.

[eggynack]

remember ... Zone of Truth doesn't magically make the truth be said, but what the character believes is the truth. And IIRC it doesn't make them actually say something, just not lie (against knowing better)
Yeah, you really want inquisition (BoED, 101) for stuff like this. Inquisition actually does force the opponent to say what they believe to be true, and unlike zone of truth, it actually lets you know whether the opponent is telling the truth. With zone of truth, the opponent can save, and as the effect isn't targeted, you won't have any idea that they saved. Thus, the outcome is completely unreliable. However, with inquisition, the effect is targeted, so you know when the spell failed to stick, and that you need to cast another one. However, inquisition is a 5th level spell, so that kind of reliability is very much not available at low levels. So, yes, there is a reason why a wizard shouldn't cast zone of truth. Because it doesn't work.

[jaydubs]

Also, there are all kinds of shenanigans you can engage in:
-Illusion spells to make it seem like touch of truthtelling succeeded.
-Modify memory to make witnesses think they're telling the truth.
-Trying to convince, bribe, charm, or dominate the jury or judge instead.
-Bringing in someone disguised to look like the culprit, so they can truthfully deny committing any of the crimes.
-Using illusions or disguises during the original crime to make sure witnesses believe something false.

See, creative players can find all kinds of ways to circumvent magical trials. :smallsmile:

[justiceforall]

But, while you can't outright lie, you can mislead.

This exactly.

I once ran a court scene with a zone of truth active. It was quite the duel of wits, with the party trying their best to say as little useful as possible without lying, and the fairly unscrupulous prosecutor trying to twist everything they said.

The big event at the end of the trial was their then-nemesis (prosecution star witness) being trapped into a lie, which revealed he was not bound by the zone of truth. The trial fell apart at that stage, resulting in the party sorcerer escaping being burned as a witch.

It takes some work or being good at picking up on slips and such, and you may also find yourself having to trust your players by asking them "is that what your character actually believes?". But it does work.

[supermonkeyjoe]

If someone knows that zone of truth will be used in a trial and is committing a premeditated crime then they will be able to take steps to mitigate its use.

Just like modern criminals will try and avoid leaving fingerprints and DNA because they know it can be used against them in court, fantastical criminals will use misdirection and technicalities to avoid leaving any truth at the crime scene.

[deuxhero]

I'd expect the flaws to be well known and anyone questioning under it would require direct clear answer.

One fun way of defeating it is modify memory.

[prufock]

Also, glibness defeats ZoT, and it is [Mind-Affecting], so there are many ways around it.

[Beleriphon]

Also, don't forget that medival, or even D&D quasi-medival, trials probably shouldn't operate on the same principles of law that most people are used to. If nothing else the provisions of testifying against oneself that many people in the US are used to don't at all apply.

If you come from a Civil Law background (that is derived from ancient Roman law as most European countries do) then the judge is going to play a high active inqusitive role, while a Common Law (derived from British law and found in Commonwealth countries and the United States) the judge is very passive and there to enforce the rules between the antagonistic attornies and interpret the law for juries.

[Kurald Galain]

You should probably start by making up some laws that apply to your fantasy world that the players don't know about unless their characters have knowledge (law) or something.

Laws like that it's a crime to punch a noble (but it's not a crime for the noble to punch you), or that it's not allowed to cast any spell within city limits without a writ from the local authorities, or that tieflings are not allowed to bear witness because everybody knows they're demonspawn. Adventurers probably break all sorts of laws because society as a whole doesn't want people to behave like the proverbial murderhobos. Of course, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it!

[DCraw]

A zone of truth spell forces them to answer truthfully, but it doesn't ensure that the lawyers ask the right questions. I assume one of the PCs will be representing the defendant, or are they smart enough to get an NPC lawyer? If the PCs are involved, consider imposing various rules about what questions can be asked. Start with some of the real world ones (no leading questions except in cross examination, no hearsay, no opinion evidence, etc) then branch out a bit. Perhaps the accused is not allowed to testify, only other witnesses - they are pretty biased, after all. Perhaps there are various formalities that must be followed, otherwise testimony is inadmissible (all claims must be preceded by "may it please the court, I submit that" or all written testimony must be read aloud, that kind of thing).

You can also have various NPC witnesses to the alleged crime see only certain parts of it. Perhaps they heard a scream and saw the accused fleeing from the scene. Alternatively, perhaps they failed their spot check and were mistaken about what they saw - remember, they can only say what they believe. Similarly, it's surprisingly easy to change people's memories. Have the witnesses hear someone give an account of the event with slightly changed details, and they will tend to agree with that person - to the point of actively remembering the false details. You can turn piecing together the varying accounts into a puzzle.

[Fitz10019]

Also, don't forget that medival, or even D&D quasi-medival, trials probably shouldn't operate on the same principles of law that most people are used to. If nothing else the provisions of testifying against oneself that many people in the US are used to don't at all apply.

If you come from a Civil Law background (that is derived from ancient Roman law as most European countries do) then the judge is going to play a high active inqusitive role, while a Common Law (derived from British law and found in Commonwealth countries and the United States) the judge is very passive and there to enforce the rules between the antagonistic attorneys and interpret the law for juries.

This is a good point. Imagine a trial where there's no such thing as objecting to a question.

A friend of mine, who was in the military, once served on a military jury. He told me the members of the jury were able to submit questions, which were then posed by the judge. Using a system like that could be a great way for an unknown-to-the-PCs NPC to toss some wrenches into the proceedings.

[Inevitability]

Well, there's at least one prestige class that grants the extraordinary ability to fool magical lie detection. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html)

[Urpriest]

People don't generally lie in real-life trials, so I don't really see this being a problem. The question is usually a semantic one of whether the accused broke the law, not a factual one of what actions were taken.

[Shining Wrath]

And it gets worse. Remember the idea of laying your hand upon the Bible and swearing to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

In a fantasy world with active, involved gods (e.g., not Eberron), the pantheon might well include a LN deity along the lines of Saint Cuthbert but whose whole deal is avenging perjury. So prior to testifying in a trial everyone lays their hand upon the Holy Symbol of the (minor? major?) deity Truthiness and swears a binding oath to be completely truthful.

And if you aren't, using incomplete truth or misleading glibness or whatever, you run the chance that ol' Truthiness will notice and come get you. The more important the trial, the greater the chance that Truthiness is paying attention.

You may be able to fool Zone of Truth, or even Inquisition, but can you fool Truthiness?

[Fouredged Sword]

Lie detecting polygraphs are fairly accurate at determining if someone is telling the truth in the modern world, and yet they are considered inadmissible in a court. At some point, the system of law decided that they are illegal, and so they can't be used. I would imagine that a system of magical justice could have such a ban on zone of truth in a trial. In the modern world the argument is that they ARE fallible, and when they fail, they give the illusion of truth to the testimony of the worst sort, those who entered the court with the full intention to lie. Zone of truth is flawed in much the same way. If you can pass the save, have the right buff, you can lie and a jury is likely to assume you are telling the truth. The zone of truth doesn't assure the truth is actually told, and thus is more of a distraction than a useful tool.

Also, the nobility of the court may consider it bellow their dignity. The king may have state secrets that cannot be allowed to come out, and a network of spies that must be able to lie in court and say they are not spies. There are many good reasons why a kingdom may simply not allow people to be placed in a zone of truth without their express consent and even then, refuse to allow the testimony to be used in a court.

On the other hand, you had courts in history that a serf's testimony was only allowed if it was extracted with torture. Serfs where assumed to be shiftless liars who's word could not be held in comparison to that of a noble. The system is commonly set up blatantly to support those in power.

[VoxRationis]

The fact that you can make a save at all (and there's no way to tell if they did) completely negates the purpose of the spell. My brother, when he DMs, sometimes rules that zone of truth allows no save, but as the spell stands in the text, it's completely useless, as it only reduces the chance of people lying to you, rather than eliminates it.

[Shining Wrath]

Lie detecting polygraphs are fairly accurate at determining if someone is telling the truth in the modern world, and yet they are considered inadmissible in a court. At some point, the system of law decided that they are illegal, and so they can't be used. I would imagine that a system of magical justice could have such a ban on zone of truth in a trial. In the modern world the argument is that they ARE fallible, and when they fail, they give the illusion of truth to the testimony of the worst sort, those who entered the court with the full intention to lie. Zone of truth is flawed in much the same way. If you can pass the save, have the right buff, you can lie and a jury is likely to assume you are telling the truth. The zone of truth doesn't assure the truth is actually told, and thus is more of a distraction than a useful tool.

Also, the nobility of the court may consider it bellow their dignity. The king may have state secrets that cannot be allowed to come out, and a network of spies that must be able to lie in court and say they are not spies. There are many good reasons why a kingdom may simply not allow people to be placed in a zone of truth without their express consent and even then, refuse to allow the testimony to be used in a court.

On the other hand, you had courts in history that a serf's testimony was only allowed if it was extracted with torture. Serfs where assumed to be shiftless liars who's word could not be held in comparison to that of a noble. The system is commonly set up blatantly to support those in power.

Off topic, sort-of, but I *have* been polygraphed - more than once. By people who absolutely knew what they were doing. One guy had actually taught polygraphs at the FBI school at Quantico.
I wouldn't want to live in a country where they were admissible in court. They remain junk science.

Back on topic, I can see how the ruling authorities might want to be able to game the system as you describe. The people who run the courts might have a variety of reasons for letting some lies go unchallenged.

[Arbane]

Lots of good ideas here, but remember....


I want to have a trial (in a mage academy no less)

....Mages are people with sky-high intelligence, some of whom have ambitions of making Planar Binding deals and WINNING at them. Tricky wording will be pounced upon like starving hawk on a guinea pig.

Not saying it's impossible, just that it's not going to be EASY.

[Beleriphon]

Lie detecting polygraphs are fairly accurate at determining if someone is telling the truth in the modern world, and yet they are considered inadmissible in a court. At some point, the system of law decided that they are illegal, and so they can't be used.

Its not that they are "illegal" per se its that polygraphs are actually really terrible at detecting lies since they are so easy to beat. It also tends to give juries a false impression since they are "lie detectors" and failing one means the person is a liar. When in reality all they do is detect stress responses. If you can stay calm then they're useless, or even better make yourself really agitated before getting hooked up and it throws the whole process out of whack. So in reality the most convincing and skilled liars will pass the test, while those that don't ineract with the justice system are most likely to fail since being a room with the police is probably going to be stressful.

The RCMP still use them as part of the recruiting process. Can't use them a Canadian court, but its okay to make a potential recruit take one. Because that person is clearly not going to be stressed out at all applying for around one hundred positions from thousands of applicants.


I would imagine that a system of magical justice could have such a ban on zone of truth in a trial. In the modern world the argument is that they ARE fallible, and when they fail, they give the illusion of truth to the testimony of the worst sort, those who entered the court with the full intention to lie. Zone of truth is flawed in much the same way. If you can pass the save, have the right buff, you can lie and a jury is likely to assume you are telling the truth. The zone of truth doesn't assure the truth is actually told, and thus is more of a distraction than a useful tool.

Same thing as the polygraph, although when it works it is infallible in so far as detecting a truth vs a lie.


Also, the nobility of the court may consider it bellow their dignity. The king may have state secrets that cannot be allowed to come out, and a network of spies that must be able to lie in court and say they are not spies. There are many good reasons why a kingdom may simply not allow people to be placed in a zone of truth without their express consent and even then, refuse to allow the testimony to be used in a court.

Generally speaking you should be using sovereign immunity anyways. The idea is that the sovereign can only be sued or persued in the courts for things of their choosing. As it stands the same principle applies in most modern Common Law systems. You can sue the government only because they let you, and only for certain things.


On the other hand, you had courts in history that a serf's testimony was only allowed if it was extracted with torture. Serfs where assumed to be shiftless liars who's word could not be held in comparison to that of a noble. The system is commonly set up blatantly to support those in power.

There's also the fact that physical evidence might not be admissible either. I know that was a rule in English courts at one point. The only evidence that was admissable was basically eye witness or character evidence. So what if you found the murder weapon in George's basement covered in blood and the victim's left hand. Nobody saw George do anything and everybody is willing to testify that he's a such a nice guy.

[jaydubs]

....Mages are people with sky-high intelligence, some of whom have ambitions of making Planar Binding deals and WINNING at them. Tricky wording will be pounced upon like starving hawk on a guinea pig.


Well, in the D&D universe, noticing things is based on wisdom, not intelligence. And since a lot of mages have low wisdom, and put no points into sense motive, they're essentially a bunch of brilliant by naive marks.

It's like con artists that prey on the highly educated. The fact they think they're so smart is one of the ways you can play them for all they're worth.

Also, if the PCs also have high intelligence scores, it's essentially a wash, since neither the DM nor the players are probably as smart as the characters they are trying to portray.

[Fouredged Sword]

My point was that while a zone of truth is a valid means of finding the truth, as DM you are well within the suspension of disbelief to say that they are not allowed in a court. Just like charming a person and asking them as a friend wouldn't be allowed, so too can ZOT be forbidden.

[Trasilor]

Wouldn't be easier and simpler to simply kill first and ask questions later of the guilty?

The dead cannot lie.

If they told the truth - boom - instant resurrection.

Legal fees would be the cost of casting the spell.

Note: I am being half-sarcastic, hence the green color

:smallamused:

[Necroticplague]

Actually a pretty valid point. People under speak with dead don't lie, though the answers won't always be useful either.

[Shining Wrath]

Wouldn't be easier and simpler to simply kill first and ask questions later of the guilty?

The dead cannot lie.

If they told the truth - boom - instant resurrection.

Legal fees would be the cost of casting the spell.

Note: I am being half-sarcastic, hence the green color

:smallamused:

But what if their crime carries a penalty of death by slow torture, and they refuse to be resurrected so you can torture them to death? WHAT THEN, SMARTYPANTS?

[Fouredged Sword]

Well, you torture them to death, then mindrape the memory from both the witness and the torturer if they turn out innocent. That way everyone is alive and healthy, and nobody has mental scars!

[Alex12]

Actually a pretty valid point. People under speak with dead don't lie, though the answers won't always be useful either.

OTOH, resurrections aren't cheap, and unless there's a way to bring them back without the typical losses (both financial losses and level losses) from dead and resurrection, I don't know that people would accept such a law.

[Kamin_Majere]

Wouldn't be easier and simpler to simply kill first and ask questions later of the guilty?

The dead cannot lie.

If they told the truth - boom - instant resurrection.

Legal fees would be the cost of casting the spell.

Note: I am being half-sarcastic, hence the green color

:smallamused:

Technically, from the outside looking in, with a world of high magic this would be perfectly acceptable and probably normal... but from the inside of the world you would have to be a pretty sick puppy to see this as a viable way to conduct law. But yeah if the world was built out of efficient use and prevalence of magic it would probably be exactly how courts would be

"Dont worry little commoner, if your telling the truth you'll totally be rezzed... not counting the years and years the noble will probably appeal and your family starves with out you to provide for them" :smalltongue:

[Doug Lampert]

I'd expect the flaws to be well known and anyone questioning under it would require direct clear answer.

One fun way of defeating it is modify memory.

Which is permanent duration and thus its presence is detectable. AFAICT all the interesting mind altering effects are permanent rather than instant.
AFAICT the 3.0 spymaster prestige class is about the only way to actually beat a moderately careful interrogation in 3.x.

Interogation proceedure in my 3.x games.

Detect magic and remove everything that shows up, note that false aura targets objects not creatures, and that if the object casts a spell effect on a person then that's still detectable. If you won't remove everything magic or let them dispell it then they just assume you're guilty of a capital crime and act accordingly.

Detect thoughts, since you always know if you made a will save this can be picked up from surface thoughts when it happens IMAO. Zone of truth.

Then we ask questions. Evasive answers, refuse to speak, attempt a save, we save time and trouble and kill you painfully. And if there's reason to think you're a rich adventurer type who might come back from being dismembered or whatever then we kill you painfully by a method that prevents true resurrection (zombifie and send the zombie to a closed demi-plane).

And I've had multiple trials in game come up and they're still interesting and memorable sessions, because knowing what everyone remembers and thinks happened isn't the same as having a verdict. Was that justified, what should the damages be, was that illegal at all, ext....

Back in 3.0 I had a long internet discussion with people trying to figure a way to get a lie past this proceedure, and finally pointed out, "Why bother, bribe the judge! You've spent orders of magnitude more than that would cost on methods that won't work against less than 200 GP worth of spell-casting, just have the judge say that what you did wasn't a crime."

If the only thing interesting about a trial is "is he guilty" then you need a system with less magic than D&D 3.x or you need to just skip past it.

[Deophaun]

Technically, from the outside looking in, with a world of high magic this would be perfectly acceptable and probably normal... but from the inside of the world you would have to be a pretty sick puppy to see this as a viable way to conduct law.
It would also mean that murder is punished with a enough community service to pay back the costs of the trial and resurrection.

Heck, I could see a kingdom where there's a yearly regicide festival: for all their grievances, the people get to kill the king once a year. King then gets resurrected and life goes on.

[~xFellWardenx~]

I find it hilarious how people have suggested 9th-level spells being used regularly in court. If you have spammable 9ths to work with, you can just ask a deity what happened or something similar. More appropriate for most games would be... Well, all the other suggestions mentioned. Except maybe "murder first, raise if innocent" but only because raising someone from the dead without penalty is also a very high-levelled effect.

[Zirconia]

Interogation proceedure in my 3.x games.

Detect magic and remove everything that shows up, note that false aura targets objects not creatures, and that if the object casts a spell effect on a person then that's still detectable. If you won't remove everything magic or let them dispell it then they just assume you're guilty of a capital crime and act accordingly.

Detect thoughts, since you always know if you made a will save this can be picked up from surface thoughts when it happens IMAO. Zone of truth.


Yeah, I was thinking something along these lines; the combo of Detect Thoughts and Zone of Truth, both low level spells, gives you pretty good information, at least for some key questions. You don't necessarily use these when some beggar steals an apple from a cart, but it would be justified for capital crimes, major felonies, etc., especially at a Mage school where you don't even have to really pay for them.

But for an example of having a trial where everybody is acting in good faith and telling the complete truth but a horrible miscarriage of justice can STILL happen, take a look at the movie "My Cousin Vinny". I recall seeing an article where one of the Supreme Court justices of the U.S. mentioned that as his favorite movie. :) Without revealing the plot, use of D&D magic could obviously lead to scenarios like that.

[Fitz10019]

The fact that you can make a save at all (and there's no way to tell if they did) completely negates the purpose of the spell. My brother, when he DMs, sometimes rules that zone of truth allows no save, but as the spell stands in the text, it's completely useless, as it only reduces the chance of people lying to you, rather than eliminates it.

It's not completely useless. Just like with a polygraph, you set a baseline. You demand a lie so you can see if the ZoT alarm is working. If it isn't you know the witness made their save. Or, another way to put it, the witness failed to comply with purposefully failing the save as instructed by the duly appointed authority. Uncooperative witness. Let the beating begin. [Must be guilty of sumthin, amIright?]

[VoxRationis]

If you demand a lie, the target can just clam up and say nothing, or tell the truth, so as to mimic the effects of being under the spell. I suppose you could use geas or dominate person, but that would invalidate their trustworthiness as a witness and the interaction between mutually contradictory effects of two different spells (one demanding the target lie, and the other forbidding it) might not work very well.

[jaydubs]

It's not completely useless. Just like with a polygraph, you set a baseline. You demand a lie so you can see if the ZoT alarm is working. If it isn't you know the witness made their save. Or, another way to put it, the witness failed to comply with purposefully failing the save as instructed by the duly appointed authority. Uncooperative witness. Let the beating begin. [Must be guilty of sumthin, amIright?]

Zone of truth doesn't have an alarm. It's just, you can't lie when you're in it if you fail the save. So it's pretty easy to pretend you failed the save, barring some other magical compulsion as mentioned by VoxRationis.

That said, ZoT is still useful in terms of a numbers game. You throw down a zone of truth for every case, with the understanding that a fraction of witnesses and defendants will still be lying. But, you've also prevented a percentage from lying as well. It's a net win, so long as you don't come to rely on it.

[eggynack]

It's not completely useless. Just like with a polygraph, you set a baseline. You demand a lie so you can see if the ZoT alarm is working. If it isn't you know the witness made their save. Or, another way to put it, the witness failed to comply with purposefully failing the save as instructed by the duly appointed authority. Uncooperative witness. Let the beating begin. [Must be guilty of sumthin, amIright?]
I'm somewhat confused by the process at work here, and I don't think it works. First, you tell the witness to purposefully fail their save. They do not, because that's the obvious premise here. You say to them, "Tell me that 2+2=5", because if they can, then they passed the save. In response, our witness says, "I cannot say that piece of information, for it is false, and I am within a zone of truth". How do you then detect that they passed their save? You can't absolutely demand a lie, because the whole point is that they can't lie, but if they can lie, then they can lie about their ability to lie. It all just seems ineffective.

[Lord of Shadows]

Do not forget that in the detailed example of a 3.x interrogation by poster Doug Lampert, the witness is already under the effects of Detect Thoughts, and presumably you wait the necessary 2 rounds before casting Zone of Truth. As Doug puts it:


Detect thoughts, since you always know if you made a will save this can be picked up from surface thoughts when it happens IMAO.

So in his campaign, it would probably work more often than not. Plus the liberal use of the "if you try to beat the system we kill you anyways" judicial procedure...