Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

[TalonOfAnathrax]

So a PC (lv8 rogue) in a game I'm playing is currently under arrest, having been accused of murder. He was found alone in a room with a dead prostitute, his dagger in her throat. He then failed to escape arrest. He can expect no help from our characters because they don't know IC where he is and he wasn't due to meet them for another two weeks. Right now he's in a cell - but he can pick the lock easily even without tools. But should he try to escape and be caught, the GM has warned him that his sentence would probably be harsher and the measures taken to stop him from avoiding it would be much harder to get free from. He failed his Knowlege roll to know anything specific about the local legal system beyond "it's average for a large trading city, and the law enforcement isn't especially corrupt or incompetent".
The thing is, he's wondering if he should take his chances with the trial. He killed the woman because she tried to cast a spell, and he noticed, won initiative, moved back to his gear and killed her with a sneak attack thrown knife that rolled high for damage. He doesn't know anything specific about the local legal system of course, but it doesn't look too bad to him - he's assuming that "casting an unidentified spell" is equivalent to suddenly drawing a weapon, so he's hoping to claim self-defense. The GM didn't specify how likely this was to work, and I thought that it was an interesting question. What would you answer?
Question: Should it be allowed to kill a spellcaster that starts casting a spell without warning, especially if you're in a place where they could kill you/rob you and get away with it?

This whole thing happened as a background roll for "does anything happen during downtime between adventures". Apparently she was meant to be a possible contact for the rogue to make if he managed the situation right (with his social skills that shouldn't have been too hard...) because he could have gotten his hands on a grateful spellcaster if he'd gotten his wizard teammate (me) to spend some of my downtime helping her retrain her spells into some stuff that's useful for things that aren't either illegal, crazy dangerous or more prostitution (she isn't unwilling, but she'd love something else that paid more for less work). I could have taught her Detect Thoughts for example, or paid her to teach me to add a few spells to my spellbook. Then she could have become a consultant for law enforcement or something, which is probably a better long-term prospect for a prostitute who's already using magic to look younger.

IRRELEVANT DETAILS ABOUT THE VICTIM THAT MIGHT INTEREST SOME OF YOU:
About the victim: After he attacked with lethal intent and instantly killed her, the GM laughed (OOC) and said that she was in fact just trying to discreetly refresh an Extended Disguise Self/Alter Self spell she had active as a sort of magical cosmetics (to make herself look a little younger and prettier). She was apparently a level 6 silverbrow human metamagic sorcerer (main skills: Bluff, Disguise, Perform and Profession) with spells that weren't very useful in combat, and so she simply kept at her old job when she got her first taste of magic. Well, she started working in a far more expensive establishment (the kind where rich level 8 adventurers go in downtime) and got richer, but she kept at it because she certainly doesn't want to risk adventuring or crime when her best combat spell is Charm Person, and she lacks the training and skills (like Diplomacy or Knowledge skills) to become a courtesan (or get any other job really - there's a stigma to her job that makes it hard to get another one that doesn't pay like **** and/or that isn't vastly harder work than what she's doing now).

I'm sharing her spell list because I thought that this was a great NPC concept and the spell list was pretty well chosen for her character IMO. She had Extend Spell, Eschew Materials, Spell Focus (Enchantment) and Greater Spell Focus (Enchantment) and knew the following spells: Suspend Disease, Endure Elements, Disguise Self and Charm Person (level 1), Alter Self and Lesser Celerity (level 2), Tongues (level 3).

[Bastian Weaver]

Doubtful. No witnesses, no evidence that the victim was a magic-user capable of harming him, and possibly no law against using magic in general... I'd pick the lock and get to the choppah without thinking twice, were I in his position.

[Nifft]

If there's any kind of prejudice against spellcasters / women / prostitutes / etc., then maybe he'll get away with it.

If the dead girl has reasonable legal representation, then it'd be easy to argue that she was going to cast something harmless like prestidigitation to clean up herself and her workplace after the mess he made.

If the dead girl was a slave or a de-facto slave, then her owner / pimp might demand monetary compensation for his loss of revenue. That sort of "destruction of property" civil claim might have more vigorous legal representation than the fantasy District Attorney's criminal charges, especially if there's prejudice against women / prostitutes / spellcasters / etc.

[Elkad]

Reasonable? No.

Plausible? Maybe. Especially if he could provide some (fake?) intent on her part. "I asked her for the money she owed me (or demanded a refund), and she threatened me, and then started casting something."
But Detect Lies (or Speak with Dead) can unravel that in a hurry.

Just the act of "using magic" doesn't mean it's a weapon any more than "using a knife" means I was going to stab you.
I could easily be taking it out of my pocket to cut my apple, or open a box, or sharpen it.

[fallensavior]

Any spellcaster (regardless of spell list) as a prostitute seems like such a huge stretch to me, unless this is a super high magic setting with like magic carpet taxis and stuff.

For practical and moral purposes, casting a spell without warning, especially someone you don't necessarily know and trust, is equivalent to suddenly reaching into your pocket and drawing out an unknown object and thrusting it at a person. Spellcasters should expect people to react (again, unless this is an abnormal game setting or something). Whenever my PCs suddenly cast spells in social situations, it usually means NPCs rolling initiative and attempting to defend themselves.

The legal/judicial could go wither way on this though, and it will probably depend more on external factors, like if the victim has connections that will press charges, or if the killer hires a good lawyer. Ever seen Gran Torino?

[Andezzar]

Reasonable? No.

Plausible? Maybe. Especially if he could provide some (fake?) intent on her part. "I asked her for the money she owed me (or demanded a refund), and she threatened me, and then started casting something."
But Detect Lies (or Speak with Dead) can unravel that in a hurry.From the OP we do not know whether the rogue actually stabbed the prostitute. Speak with Dead might help.

You should first establish whether a) public prosecution actually exists in the city b) if it does not whether anyone else is permitted to bring accusations against the rogue (the prostitute obviously cannot).

[KillianHawkeye]

he's assuming that "casting an unidentified spell" is equivalent to suddenly drawing a weapon, so he's hoping to claim self-defense.

The problem here is that "an unidentified spell" could just as easily be a bouquet of flowers or a medical salve or a box of chocolates as a weapon. In most real life situations, it's not okay to kill someone just for reaching into their coat pockets. Even if you had some reason to suspect that they were dangerous, you'll be in a heap of trouble if you're wrong.

Magic complicates things somewhat, as it isn't always easy to confirm after the fact what spell they were planning on casting. A material component might be able to tell you, but otherwise there's nothing. It's not like you can turn over the fresh corpse and find that what you thought was a gun was actually a teddy bear. But still, that probably doesn't justify murder when there are less lethal ways of stopping her. As a reminder, you don't have to take Sneak Attack every time you qualify for it. Any attack would have probably disrupted the spell.


So with all that, I think what you did would have been fine in the Mos Eisley cantina or some other suitably lawless "Old West" sort of locale where a couple people getting killed is just a normal Tuesday. You'd just tip the bartender and mosey along on your merry way. But since you've been arrested and are being put on trial for murder, you clearly weren't in one of those places.

If it's anything like a modern legal system, you might be able to argue your crime down to something like a manslaughter charge AT BEST, but I don't know how you could prove that. You weren't intending to murder this woman, but you did strike with intent to kill in the heat of the moment (as your usage of Sneak Attack indicates). That's technically second-degree murder, I believe, or manslaughter. I can't quite remember the difference.

In other words, you're not getting off scot free.



EDIT:
Then again, let's play Devil's Advocate for a second.

she was in fact just trying to discreetly refresh an Extended Disguise Self/Alter Self spell she had active as a sort of magical cosmetics (to make herself look a little younger and prettier).

Casting spells discreetly isn't as easy as it sounds. I'm not into victim blaming or anything like that, but she really should have done it in the bathroom or wait until the customer has gone. I just would expect her to have a higher degree of professionalism if she was a prostitute who suddenly got magic and decided to double down on prostituting. And she's not Level 1 or anything, so she's clearly been doing this for a while.

This is clearly a failure on the DM's part for having an NPC do something that was stupidly out of character when a PC was there to do what PCs always do.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

If there's any kind of prejudice against spellcasters / women / prostitutes / etc., then maybe he'll get away with it.

If the dead girl has reasonable legal representation, then it'd be easy to argue that she was going to cast something harmless like prestidigitation to clean up herself and her workplace after the mess he made.

If the dead girl was a slave or a de-facto slave, then her owner / pimp might demand monetary compensation for his loss of revenue. That sort of "destruction of property" civil claim might have more vigorous legal representation than the fantasy District Attorney's criminal charges, especially if there's prejudice against women / prostitutes / spellcasters / etc.
I had absolutely not thought of that last thing. Thanks! I'll tell that to the rogue's player before next session to scare him a bit. He's probably more scared of them confiscating his gear than of them putting him in prison, which is weird - I always assume prisons in large cities to have magic and such which would make escaping a pain, but maybe he's just hoping to timeskip through his sentence? Not sure how that would even work for us other PCs though. Maybe the GM plans to fine him, or put an annoying but not wholly debilitating Mark of Justice on him?
Well, I guess we'll see if he fails to escape and/or loses the trial.

And I certainly will tell the player to try to figure out how people feel about spellcasters. He might actually have to prove that she was one now that I think about it (it might not have been publicly known - his character certainly didn't know about it when he hired her). Still, exploiting latent prejudice might be a good strategy.


Any spellcaster (regardless of spell list) as a prostitute seems like such a huge stretch to me, unless this is a super high magic setting with like magic carpet taxis and stuff.

For practical and moral purposes, casting a spell without warning, especially someone you don't necessarily know and trust, is equivalent to suddenly reaching into your pocket and drawing out an unknown object and thrusting it at a person. Spellcasters should expect people to react (again, unless this is an abnormal game setting or something). Whenever my PCs suddenly cast spells in social situations, it usually means NPCs rolling initiative and attempting to defend themselves.

The legal/judicial could go wither way on this though, and it will probably depend more on external factors, like if the victim has connections that will press charges, or if the killer hires a good lawyer. Ever seen Gran Torino?
A spellcaster as a prostitute doesn't really seem like a stretch to me. It's what she was already doing so she first got a few spells that could be useful for that, and then she was unwilling to try crime or risk her life (which is pretty much the entire use of most low-level spells if you think about it - at least the ones she got).
About the NPC casting: she was trying to hide it. There was an opposed skill check of some sort. I'm not sure how the GM managed that actually. Every RAW way I can think of requires bard levels or a lot of Sleight of Hand ranks that she couldn't possibly have had at level 6. Maybe I missed a rule, or he gave her a custom feat of some kind?


From the OP we do not know whether the rogue actually stabbed the prostitute. Speak with Dead might help.

You should first establish whether a) public prosecution actually exists in the city b) if it does not whether anyone else is permitted to bring accusations against the rogue (the prostitute obviously cannot).
Yes, the rogue did actually kill her.
As for who will be prosecuting him? Probably the prostitute's friends/coworkers/boss. I should probably have asked the GM that: good find! It's obviously different if he's up against grieving friends, an angry boss or a city official who's against murder in general.

If there is a trial, I'm pretty sure that the rogue is hoping to be put under Zone of Truth (she really was a spellcaster, he really did think he was acting in self-defence). That might not be enough to get him off scott-free (he should probably have gone for subdual damage, for instance) but it may help. It paints him as a dangerous fool and not a psychopath.

[fallensavior]

Casting spells discreetly isn't as easy as it sounds. I'm not into victim blaming or anything like that, but she really should have done it in the bathroom or wait until the customer has gone. I just would expect her to have a higher degree of professionalism if she was a prostitute who suddenly got magic and decided to double down on prostituting. And she's not Level 1 or anything, so she's clearly been doing this for a while.

This is clearly a failure on the DM's part for having an NPC do something that was stupidly out of character when a PC was there to do what PCs always do.

Yeah, the more I think about this, it seems like the DM baited the Rogue.


IA spellcaster as a prostitute doesn't really seem like a stretch to me. It's what she was already doing so she first got a few spells that could be useful for that, and then she was unwilling to try crime or risk her life (which is pretty much the entire use of most low-level spells if you think about it - at least the ones she got).
About the NPC casting: she was trying to hide it. There was an opposed skill check of some sort. I'm not sure how the GM managed that actually. Every RAW way I can think of requires bard levels or a lot of Sleight of Hand ranks that she couldn't possibly have had at level 6. Maybe I missed a rule, or he gave her a custom feat of some kind?

Maybe a first level spellcaster. I don't see how they would get XP to advance though...anyway, since she's already 6th level and already has those spells,...I can think of different jobs. Mediator/negotiator/translator seems ideal with Tongues + Charm Person and Charisma. Disguise Self mean not having to worry about a reputation from a previous occupation.

...

Disguise self has verbal and somatic components. One could be cheesy and say you're doing the hand gesture behind your back or behind the cover of a cloak/dresser/whatever. I'd let them make a spot check to see it. You can't really get around needing to speak in a strong voice for the verbal component without Silent Spell.

[Zanos]

I am 100% sure that if a a poorly known spellcaster was near an important political figure and started casting an unknown spell, the guards would drop him immediately. Spells are so dangerous that yeah it could be Prestidigitation, but it could also be "'kill everyone in the room".

I totally think it's reasonable for a sane society to have a law that casting a spell is considered comparable to drawing a weapon. I mean, yeah you can pull out a dagger to skin an apple, but it's probably not reasonable to do in private with someone who doesn't know you. Magic is most often used as a tool to make bad things happen to other people, after all. And trying to conceal the casting is doubly suspect.

That said this guy has no witnesses and no proof, making the whole thing kind of rough. Magically aided interrogation might actually help his case; if he says he feared for his life due to the spell under a some of truth or something, it might help.

[fallensavior]

I've even had laws against spellcasters drinking alcohol in some societies. Usually some PC goes "huh?" Then I explain to them, "Imagine there's a guy sitting on the couch over there with one hand surgically attached to a flamethrower and the other surgically attached to a rocket launcher. Would you be comfortable with him getting drunk?"

[Kelb_Panthera]

Has it occurred to the rogue player that ress' magic is a thing? 5k is probably less severe than whatever the penalty for murder is. If he's entitled to representation then asking for his allies to be sent for should be trivial. Getting her back on her feet could, hopefully, mitigate the charges.

That out of the way, "the hooker was casting a spell," strikes me as a fairly dodgy defense. Disguise self has no material component and spellcasters are pretty uncommon by default. I wouldn't expect zone of truth to be any more acceptable to a court than a polygraph for much the same reason; it's too likely to be thwarted by the subject.

This all assumes a very modern system of legal procedure, of course. Something a bit more archaic should certainly be fled with all haste.

[Blackhawk748]

If someone can identify that she had Alter Self on her (speak with dead or possibly Detect Magic with some spellcraft) that would at least give him some level of credibility of self defense. Alter Self can turn you into a Lizardfolk and they can rip apart a normal human with little effort, easily making it a combat spell.

[Necroticplague]

While this is obviously bringing modern values into a society that might not have them, my own country doesn't consider brandishing a weapon to me sufficient threat to justify self-defense. And people who like to very loudly point this out are free to walk to walk the street demonstrating that fact, by actively having one ready, and at least two others visible.

Especially considering the rogue probably doesn't know enough Spellcraft to know what was being cast. You might have some wiggle room if you knew they were definitely casting something worthy of self defence, and then just need to convince whatever body presides over the trial of that, but you don't even have that. This is the equivalent of 'she reached under the bed. I assumed she was reaching for a shotgun, so I put one in her head before she could do me in'. Unless you have some very extenuating circumstances, you don't come off as defending yourself, you come off as a violent paranoid. Or, in other words, you come off not only as guilty, but as the kind of person who should be locked up on principal for the protection of others.

[denthor]

Legal in games gets time consuming and messy.

I personally do not like it. DM get their rocks off by making players think one thing and provoking a situation when if it were the other way around they would hand wave it since an NPC life in prison is not worth knowing about.

[KillianHawkeye]

I just realized we're all assuming that it's going to be like a modern courtroom trial with talking and jurors and evidence and stuff, when it could just as easily be one where they throw you under water and you're guilty if you float, or one where you're only innocent if you can survive being tortured or if you can walk across hot coals without feeling pain or something else crazy. Do they even accept defense testimony at this trial? Can he demand a trial by combat?

The Rogue might want to confirm what kind of trial it's actually going to be before he gets too confident that he can pass it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If someone can identify that she had Alter Self on her (speak with dead or possibly Detect Magic with some spellcraft) that would at least give him some level of credibility of self defense. Alter Self can turn you into a Lizardfolk and they can rip apart a normal human with little effort, easily making it a combat spell.

The aura of magic from low level spells fades in seconds after they expire so detect + spellcraft is out of the question. Speak with dead -could- work but I wouldn't take it as conclusive since illusions are a thing. At best it'd be equivalent to testimony by an expert witness, at least to my mind. That's assuming that the DM doesn't simply declare that the damage to the girl's throat causes the spell to fail.

[Jack_Simth]

wouldn't expect zone of truth to be any more acceptable to a court than a polygraph for much the same reason; it's too likely to be thwarted by the subject.
There is also the bit where statistics folks figured out that it almost always came out in favor of the person who pays the guy who reads the chart. Including when both sides pay two different guys to do it.

Pathfinder has Touch of Truthtelling (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/touch-of-truthtelling/) to make things easier, but this is clearly 3.5.

[King of Nowhere]

I assume magic can be used to detect lies, which actually helps the rogue because his good intention can be proved. It could get him a reduced sentence, but it was still a big mistake on his part that carries legal consequences. It's like someone drew a can of beer and you just saw something metallic and tought of a knife and shot the guy. Tragic accident, reduced sentence, but you're still guilty of improperly using lethal force. If you have the power to kill easily, you also have the responsibility on using it appropriately.

Still, not everything is lost: I don't know how that world works, but death is a big deal in our world because it can't be undone. In D&D, death can be undone, which would make it a lesser deal. If they pay to raise the girl, it may bring the charges down from murder to harming a person. And the rogue could get away with monetary compensation.




The Rogue might want to confirm what kind of trial it's actually going to be before he gets too confident that he can pass it.
The op confirmed that the justice system is fair enough.


Legal in games gets time consuming and messy.



Not necessarrily. Once one of my players accidentally killed an innocent during an ambush mistaking her for one of the ambushers; I ruled that the judge condemned him to pay for a raise dead and some compensation, but nothing more given the situation and the lack of real malicious intent. Took 15 minutes to sort out at the table, tops. Annd it was actually a similar case to the one presented here (though at my table it was an actual ambush, so it was a more justified mistake)




This is clearly a failure on the DM's part for having an NPC do something that was stupidly out of character when a PC was there to do what PCs always do.

Am I the only one to have players who do not attempt to murder anything they see?

[Zanos]

While this is obviously bringing modern values into a society that might not have them, my own country doesn't consider brandishing a weapon to me sufficient threat to justify self-defense. And people who like to very loudly point this out are free to walk to walk the street demonstrating that fact, by actively having one ready, and at least two others visible.
Assuming you're talking about the US, carrying a weapon is fine, pointing it at someone is not. If someone draws a gun from their holster with you in private and you tackle them and wind up killing them, you probably have decent self defense case.


Especially considering the rogue probably doesn't know enough Spellcraft to know what was being cast. You might have some wiggle room if you knew they were definitely casting something worthy of self defence, and then just need to convince whatever body presides over the trial of that, but you don't even have that. This is the equivalent of 'she reached under the bed. I assumed she was reaching for a shotgun, so I put one in her head before she could do me in'. Unless you have some very extenuating circumstances, you don't come off as defending yourself, you come off as a violent paranoid. Or, in other words, you come off not only as guilty, but as the kind of person who should be locked up on principal for the protection of others.
This is more of a case where you don't know if the gun is loaded with blanks than you don't know if there's a gun at all. Spells are inherently dangerous.


Am I the only one to have players who do not attempt to murder anything they see?
Hey at least they're only killing perceived threats, and not everyone everywhere.

[Nifft]

I had absolutely not thought of that last thing. Thanks! I'll tell that to the rogue's player before next session to scare him a bit. He's probably more scared of them confiscating his gear than of them putting him in prison, which is weird - I always assume prisons in large cities to have magic and such which would make escaping a pain, but maybe he's just hoping to timeskip through his sentence? Not sure how that would even work for us other PCs though. Maybe the GM plans to fine him, or put an annoying but not wholly debilitating Mark of Justice on him?
Well, I guess we'll see if he fails to escape and/or loses the trial.

Delighted to assist.

I'd suggest penalizing money, not prison time, mostly because earning money is a thing the game is good at, while sitting in prison isn't really a fun game thing -- unless the whole party is in prison and breaking out, in which case that can be awesome.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I assume magic can be used to detect lies, which actually helps the rogue because his good intention can be proved. It could get him a reduced sentence, but it was still a big mistake on his part that carries legal consequences. It's like someone drew a can of beer and you just saw something metallic and tought of a knife and shot the guy. Tragic accident, reduced sentence, but you're still guilty of improperly using lethal force. If you have the power to kill easily, you also have the responsibility on using it appropriately.

Magic -can- be used to detect lies but not substantially more reliably than non-magical methods. Well, except the one but I doubt the court in question has access to a mind flayer and a thought extruder. If they do, RUN.


Still, not everything is lost: I don't know how that world works, but death is a big deal in our world because it can't be undone. In D&D, death can be undone, which would make it a lesser deal. If they pay to raise the girl, it may bring the charges down from murder to harming a person. And the rogue could get away with monetary compensation.

Hopefully she'll agree to being ress'ed. I brought this point up too but it's not any more certain than anything else we've put forward.


The op confirmed that the justice system is fair enough.

Technically he said that it was average for a large city and that the enforcement doesn't have a reputation for being particularly corrupt. Not sure how comfortable I'd be for hanging my hat on that.



Not necessarrily. Once one of my players accidentally killed an innocent during an ambush mistaking her for one of the ambushers; I ruled that the judge condemned him to pay for a raise dead and some compensation, but nothing more given the situation and the lack of real malicious intent. Took 15 minutes to sort out at the table, tops. Annd it was actually a similar case to the one presented here (though at my table it was an actual ambush, so it was a more justified mistake)

Different strokes for different folks. As long as it's not an all the time thing, I could get into a courtroom drama kind of thing. I can definitely see how it's not everyone's cup of tea though.




Am I the only one to have players who do not attempt to murder anything they see?

None of them? Yeah, you might be pretty close to unique if that's the case. :smalltongue:

[King of Nowhere]

I wouldn't expect zone of truth to be any more acceptable to a court than a polygraph for much the same reason; it's too likely to be thwarted by the subject.


there was a big debate a while ago on the impact of magic on the justice administration, but it wasn't conclusive. too much depends on the setting





None of them? Yeah, you might be pretty close to unique if that's the case. :smalltongue:

well, some of them do, but most are firmly in the "ask first, blast later" field. too many potential allies that can be alienated otherwise.

[Telok]

Am I the only one to have players who do not attempt to murder anything they see?

Probably.


In reality what happens highly depends on how much the DM knows or cases about RL Medieval jurisprudence and morality vs. the modern versions. In very very general if you're up against anything like actual Medieval law it's highly dependent on the social status of the two people, local morals about prostitution, and if the victim has any family or someone who wants restitution for her death and can pay for justice or has local political clout. But generally you're looking at anything from a fine or death price up to physical punishment, banishment, or enslavement. As an extra-legal side effect you could find yourself embroiled in a blood-feud or possibly some disfavour with a local big-wig whose favourite prostitute you whacked.

[hamishspence]

In Shining South, in the section on Halruaa "They pointed something at me that looked like a wand, so I slew them" is called out as a valid defence - provided you genuinely thought your life was in danger.

Which may imply that there will be mind-reading in these kinds of cases.

[johnbragg]

Is it insane to suggest that he be really sorry about the misunderstanding and offer to pay for a raise dead?

[Kelb_Panthera]

there was a big debate a while ago on the impact of magic on the justice administration, but it wasn't conclusive. too much depends on the setting.

Best case; 1:20 out of the overwhelming majority of people makes the save and that's as cast by an optimized ~8th level caster. As an AoE, the caster doesn't even know if they made it or not to boot. Most such spells run into at least this much of a hurdle before you even get to simply refusing to answer or misleading without lying. Magic is only a tool for finding a solution, almost never the solution itself.


well, some of them do, but most are firmly in the "ask first, blast later" field. too many potential allies that can be alienated otherwise.

Attacking is almost never my first response to things either but there's always that one guy. Every group has a Belkar. :smallamused:

[Zanos]

Discern Lies? It's targeted.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Discern Lies? It's targeted.

And allows a save and can be decieved without even resorting to magic.

Asks the rogue "did you take the jewels from the vault?" Rogue says "I did not take the jewels from the vault," while thinking "I gave it to the fighter to carry 'cause I'm close to hitting a medium load." Discern lies remains quiet.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

I just realized we're all assuming that it's going to be like a modern courtroom trial with talking and jurors and evidence and stuff, when it could just as easily be one where they throw you under water and you're guilty if you float, or one where you're only innocent if you can survive being tortured or if you can walk across hot coals without feeling pain or something else crazy. Do they even accept defense testimony at this trial? Can he demand a trial by combat?

The Rogue might want to confirm what kind of trial it's actually going to be before he gets too confident that he can pass it.
Damn, good point. That's hilariously terrifying - he would probably die (we have no Gods on hand) but the GM could make it a public event and have our PCs try to discreetly rig the event with magic or whatever. Plausible!
I would actually prefer a courtroom drama though - our sneaky PC was the rogue, not the wizard. Wrong spell selection for that!
Chilling idea though. Gotta keep that in mind for next time I GM. Trials like those make sense in-setting too, because Gods exist!


Has it occurred to the rogue player that ress' magic is a thing? 5k is probably less severe than whatever the penalty for murder is. If he's entitled to representation then asking for his allies to be sent for should be trivial. Getting her back on her feet could, hopefully, mitigate the charges.

That out of the way, "the hooker was casting a spell," strikes me as a fairly dodgy defense. Disguise self has no material component and spellcasters are pretty uncommon by default. I wouldn't expect zone of truth to be any more acceptable to a court than a polygraph for much the same reason; it's too likely to be thwarted by the subject.

This all assumes a very modern system of legal procedure, of course. Something a bit more archaic should certainly be fled with all haste.
Actually, Raise Dead was somehow brought up by no-one at the table. Too used to our last setting where it was house rules into quasi-impossibility, I guess! Thanks for the idea!


I've even had laws against spellcasters drinking alcohol in some societies. Usually some PC goes "huh?" Then I explain to them, "Imagine there's a guy sitting on the couch over there with one hand surgically attached to a flamethrower and the other surgically attached to a rocket launcher. Would you be comfortable with him getting drunk?"
That makes a lot of sense and I like it. Keeping that for my next campaign!


Yeah, the more I think about this, it seems like the DM baited the Rogue.



Maybe a first level spellcaster. I don't see how they would get XP to advance though...anyway, since she's already 6th level and already has those spells,...I can think of different jobs. Mediator/negotiator/translator seems ideal with Tongues + Charm Person and Charisma. Disguise Self mean not having to worry about a reputation from a previous occupation.

...

Disguise self has verbal and somatic components. One could be cheesy and say you're doing the hand gesture behind your back or behind the cover of a cloak/dresser/whatever. I'd let them make a spot check to see it. You can't really get around needing to speak in a strong voice for the verbal component without Silent Spell.
Was the DM baiting the rogue? Possible. Not the kind of thing he would do, but I won't argue about a guy's personality to people on the internet who haven't met him. No-one complained much though, so it seems like he got away with it anyhow! :D

Well the Sorcerer was around 35/40 years old without the spells, and presumably she faced a few combat or dangerous social encounters that allowed her to level over the years. Unruly clients, mafia shakedowns... Who knows? Or maybe she was a Commoner 5/Sorcerer 1 and then spent years retraining her class levels as best she could (difficult but possible under our retraining rules)? Having random NPCs being level 4-6 isn't unusual in this GM's table though, so none of us thought it was very odd. Unexpected for a prostitute, but if she'd been a level 6 rogue we wouldn't have been too surprised. Now a Wizard of class requiring training would have been very alarming to us, but a Sorcerer class that manifests pretty much at random in someone? Bad luck!
As for getting a job as a negotiator: I presume that those require contacts and influence, as well as a degree of trust. She could have advertised her magic more and found someone willing to pay her to provide Tongues spells, I guess (maybe a rich Merchant who travels far?). Weird now that I think about it. Maybe this potential contact had a whole life story and issues we'd have to spend a session fixing before we could get her as an ally in our debt? I'll ask the GM next session I suppose.

About casting without being noticed: It can be done with the Sleight of Hand skill (and a skill trick), so I presume that the speaking loudly requirement can be mitigated somehow. Speak as he speaks? Speak as you kick something over?
He got a fair enough skill check to notice despite being distracted though. The dice gods were against her that day, and he noticed and killed her. I think she rolled Bluff and Disguise against his Listen and Spot? Not perfect (and Google tells me it probably wasn't RAW either) but makes sense to me. She has good modifiers in this skills which explain how she could have mostly managed for years - ending up against a level 8 person with both skills maxxed who went straight for the kill instead of using subdual damage or threats was terrible luck for her, it seems.

[Zanos]

And allows a save and can be decieved without even resorting to magic.

Asks the rogue "did you take the jewels from the vault?" Rogue says "I did not take the jewels from the vault," while thinking "I gave it to the fighter to carry 'cause I'm close to hitting a medium load." Discern lies remains quiet.

Yeah, but being a targeted spell, the caster knows if the target passes or fails.

The second part can be easily avoided by asking intelligent questions.

[Jack_Simth]

Yeah, but being a targeted spell, the caster knows if the target passes or fails.

The second part can be easily avoided by asking intelligent questions.

Yes& but most DM'S are not trained in interrogating witness. Meanwhile, lots of folks are adept at being evasive.

[Zanos]

Yes& but most DM'S are not trained in interrogating witness.
A system of justice should be, though.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yeah, but being a targeted spell, the caster knows if the target passes or fails.

The second part can be easily avoided by asking intelligent questions.

My point was that these spells aren't infallible (by a long-shot) and that it would be absurd for a court to treat them as such. Calling in a caster to make use of this magic is very much equivalent to calling in expert witnesses. It's simply calling an interrogator to give his expert opinion.

[Nifft]

A system of justice should be, though.

Indeed.

This would be an example of a time when the DM should roll and narrate, rather than be bullied into role-playing against a player.

[Necroticplague]

Indeed.

This would be an example of a time when the DM should roll and narrate, rather than be bullied into role-playing against a player.

And similarly, many PC characters are probably less experience with wordplay and technicalities in logic than a player is. In these kind of evasive speaking scenarios, that should just be a straight bluff vs. sense motive, and a vague word of what he's trying to do. A failed roll, and he doesn't catch on. A successful one, and he at least takes note of your evasiveness.

[Jack_Simth]

A system of justice should be, though.
Sure. But you've only got a DM and some players at the actual table. A given table can RP it out with a Q&A, understanding that there will be a lot of DM's that can and will get tripped up by scenarios much like Kelb_Panthera described, or a given table can make it check of some kind (Bluff vs. Sense Motive would work as suggested by Necroticplague).

[GrayDeath]

Has it occurred to the rogue player that ress' magic is a thing? 5k is probably less severe than whatever the penalty for murder is. If he's entitled to representation then asking for his allies to be sent for should be trivial. Getting her back on her feet could, hopefully, mitigate the charges.



QFT.

If Raise Dead is not somehow (per DM Fiat) unavailable, he should simply volunteer to pay it asap, and show remorse otherwise, and unless this is a clear setup or a City ruled by a Kangoroo Court (or he a known criminal of course) there should be no further consequences.

He maybe should add a smallish compensation to the revived woman, after all, but thats Alignment-dependant. ^^

[Necroticplague]

If we're going to be taking the magic of DnD's world into account, that raises another thorny question: is killing someone even necessarily wrong? I mean, the afterlife does provably exist, so are you aren't really cutting off their future in the same way killing does in real life, so is there really significant harm? She's still alive, and quiet possibly in a better state than before.

[Zanos]

And similarly, many PC characters are probably less experience with wordplay and technicalities in logic than a player is. In these kind of evasive speaking scenarios, that should just be a straight bluff vs. sense motive, and a vague word of what he's trying to do. A failed roll, and he doesn't catch on. A successful one, and he at least takes note of your evasiveness.
A straight roll? Probably not, you're going to take a huge penalty for having to finagle everything to not be technically a lie. Professional(Legal) or something might come into play to, since lawyers kind of specialize in crafting questions that people can't give a meaningless truth too.

[Nifft]

And similarly, many PC characters are probably less experience with wordplay and technicalities in logic than a player is. In these kind of evasive speaking scenarios, that should just be a straight bluff vs. sense motive, and a vague word of what he's trying to do. A failed roll, and he doesn't catch on. A successful one, and he at least takes note of your evasiveness.


A straight roll? Probably not, you're going to take a huge penalty for having to finagle everything to not be technically a lie. Professional(Legal) or something might come into play to, since lawyers kind of specialize in crafting questions that people can't give a meaningless truth too. Hmm, how would I do this.

I'd probably do something like...

- Argument-by-argument rolls are Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, or Sense Motive -- depending on the specific approach of the argument / strategy.

- I would NOT ask for Profession (lawyer), that's too niche for my games, but I would reward having a relevant Knowledge: especially local, but also a bit for history or nobility & royalty.

- The players of the other characters who aren't the defendant all earn XP for justifying whatever rolls the DA makes. This means it's many-against-one in terms of RP, and that seems appropriate for the DA's relative experience in this field. However, the DA will probably have worse stats. This also keeps everyone involved, and allows me as DM to play only the judge.

- The judge will be swayed by both facts and the apparent character of the defendant. So lying is quite risky, but might be rewarding too.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If we're going to be taking the magic of DnD's world into account, that raises another thorny question: is killing someone even necessarily wrong? I mean, the afterlife does provably exist, so are you aren't really cutting off their future in the same way killing does in real life, so is there really significant harm? She's still alive, and quiet possibly in a better state than before.

This is one of those player knowledge/ character knowledge things. We players know everything about magic and the game setting so it's really obvious to us that there's definitely an afterlife. It's much, much less obvious from within the game world. The overwhelming majority of people in the game world will never have seen any positive proof of such a thing.

First there's the rarity of spellcasters in general, then the much greater rarity of those with access to transplanar magic other than the summon monster spells. I think the earliest you're even capable of leaving the material plane to visit other realms removed from it (without walking there through natural rifts and portals anyway) is something like 7th level. The ability to create man-made portals is rarified to the stuff of legends and the portals themselves are suitably rare and typically well guarded on much the same order as naturally occurring ones.

Then there's the absolute -reams- of conflicting information on what the afterlife actually looks like after the vanishingly rare fist-hand accounts have been filtered through several degrees of separation before reaching most common folks. Sure, they -believe- it's real but they don't know it with certainty anymore than a typical modern human knows that the planet closest to alpha centauri is there. Experts say it is so and most commoners believe but that was true IRL too until relatively recently. Still is in much of the world for that matter. Unlike scientific observations in reality though, almost no one in a game world can independently verify -anything- the clergy say because they have -no- access to spellcasting of their own.

Then consider that some of the information is in conflict because there is deliberate misinformation being sowed by the gods only know how many clerics of evil gods, arch fiends, and even mere trickery gods. A cleric of Kord and a cleric of Moradin will paint -very- different pictures of the hereafter without either of them having to lie while a priest of Mammon will paint a third picture that's almost certainly riddled with falsehoods. Who's Joe Dirt-Farmer supposed to believe when he has absolutely no means of even determining that alignment is a thing, much less what the alignment is for each of these three priests.

To your initial question though; there's the simple fact that laws aren't written for or by the dead. The friends, family, and countrymen of those who've been taken from them by time, pestilence, or violence may take some comfort in the fact that their loved one is "in a better place" but that's not going to make them okay with people deliberately hastening their departure to the hereafter. The extraordinary rarity and expense of ress' magic is such that its existence can't even begin to put a dent in that.

[Zanos]

If we're going to be taking the magic of DnD's world into account, that raises another thorny question: is killing someone even necessarily wrong? I mean, the afterlife does provably exist, so are you aren't really cutting off their future in the same way killing does in real life, so is there really significant harm? She's still alive, and quiet possibly in a better state than before.
Not really all that thorny. Even real world faiths that believed in a paradise afterlife had murder as a major sin.


- I would NOT ask for Profession (lawyer), that's too niche for my games, but I would reward having a relevant Knowledge: especially local, but also a bit for history or nobility & royalty.
I wouldn't ask for the player to have it. Bluff definitely includes misleading with truths.

[King of Nowhere]

My point was that these spells aren't infallible (by a long-shot) and that it would be absurd for a court to treat them as such. Calling in a caster to make use of this magic is very much equivalent to calling in expert witnesses. It's simply calling an interrogator to give his expert opinion.

well, it can be made virtually infallible by repeated castings. some cursed items bestowing a penalty to will saves may also prove very helpful. But that's high magic setting stuff, most settings will not be able to afford all that magic for a trial.

Anyway, while the spell is not infallible, it is better than nothing. It is a further corroboration of the story. And the story itself is very believable, after all. - the rogue had no reason to kill the prostitute
- those who knew the prostitute can testify that she used to look younger, thus proving that she was using illusions. it's reasonable she was trying to cast a spell.
So, convincing the jury that it really was an accident. If the rogue has a decently heroic reputation, that will further help (most pcs do). With all that, it would not be unreasonable to give the rogue a sentence that would not interfere with further adventures - be it financiary compensation, or some no-crippling corporal punishment, or even occasional labor.

[Kelb_Panthera]

well, it can be made virtually infallible by repeated castings. some cursed items bestowing a penalty to will saves may also prove very helpful. But that's high magic setting stuff, most settings will not be able to afford all that magic for a trial.

That just runs into different practical concerns. Rarity of casters, limited spell-slots, the fact that massive debuffs that you're either unable or not allowed to resist can be readily argued to be torture, expense, expediency, etc.


Anyway, while the spell is not infallible, it is better than nothing. It is a further corroboration of the story. And the story itself is very believable, after all. - the rogue had no reason to kill the prostitute

Is it? Spellcasters are rare and lies are not. Modern courts don't allow polygraphic evidence because of their fallibility. Why should the magic version, which is just as fallible in its own way, be treated any differently? Adventurers and corpses are found in each others' company with stunning frequency and they aren't known for their... stability. They're not all heroes and even the ones that are heroes aren't necessarily perceived as such.


- those who knew the prostitute can testify that she used to look younger, thus proving that she was using illusions. it's reasonable she was trying to cast a spell.

Makeup, death, and time can all distort someone's apparent age. That she looks older now that she's dead proves nothing at all much less that illusions were involved. A thorough examination of her quarters that turns up no makeup at all could point in that direction though. Unfortunately for our rogue, the best illusions are subtle and supplemental to more mundane showmanship. Hopefully the deceased wasn't particularly adept and/ or was cheap enough to dispense with makeup.



So, convincing the jury that it really was an accident. If the rogue has a decently heroic reputation, that will further help (most pcs do).

Not where I'm from they don't. You're right that it would help immensely though. Most of the PCs I've known were pretty mercenary and, if they had a reputation at all, their reputation was mostly just that.


With all that, it would not be unreasonable to give the rogue a sentence that would not interfere with further adventures - be it financiary compensation, or some no-crippling corporal punishment, or even occasional labor.

Depends on the setting. Most of the world through most of history would just kill you back for killing someone unless there was a pretty substantial gap in social status. That's why my first thought was to ress'; lessen the harm, lessen the sentence.


I don't necessarily disagree with you in principle that the spells in question could be useful for establishing innocence, just cautioning against taking it as a given. You also seem to have made some rather bold presumptions about how the game is played. We really need the OP to establish these things before we should give advice based on them.

To that end; let's ask. Hey OP, can we get a bit more info about the setting or the rogue's reputation in it? We've been presuming a pretty modern, evidence-based judiciary but we could be -way- off on that. DM a history buff?

[Darth Ultron]

So I will try to answer the Legal Self Defense question.

First off, in a more ''Like Earth before 1400 or so" time, Everyone is armed pretty much all the time. And this is even true in 2018 in a lot of places in the world. There are a lot of places you can go where you can expect everyone to be armed and have a weapon.

Second, a spell is generically like an item with no hostile component to classify it as a 'weapon' a lot like a tool. A lot of tools can be 'weapons', but they are not always weapons. So if you see someone with a tool, you can not assume they are hostile and using it as a weapon.

The same way you can not assume any spell is hostile.

So, the third thing is this takes us to 'intent'. Someone holding a weapon or tool, or casting a spell, does not have legal hostile intent unless it is obvious. For a handheld weapon just holding or pointing does not count; it would need to be a swing. Missie weapons, and things like bows, would count if pointed toward the individual. A tool or item really only counts if the use it like a weapon. A spell really only counts if it has some directed hostile effect.

In short: You can not assuming ANY spellcasting is hostile and react with deadly force.

[Necroticplague]

This is one of those player knowledge/ character knowledge things. We players know everything about magic and the game setting so it's really obvious to us that there's definitely an afterlife. It's much, much less obvious from within the game world. The overwhelming majority of people in the game world will never have seen any positive proof of such a thing.

First there's the rarity of spellcasters in general, then the much greater rarity of those with access to transplanar magic other than the summon monster spells. I think the earliest you're even capable of leaving the material plane to visit other realms removed from it (without walking there through natural rifts and portals anyway) is something like 7th level. The bold is why I believe knowledge of it would be common.It's entirely possible for somebody with no extraordinary skill to take a visit if they know of a way. While a lot of people wouldn't have the experience themselves, there'd also be a substantial amount of people who have. Not believing in the afterlife would be like me believing China doesn't exist, simply because I've never been there.

[King of Nowhere]

This is one of those player knowledge/ character knowledge things. We players know everything about magic and the game setting so it's really obvious to us that there's definitely an afterlife. It's much, much less obvious from within the game world. The overwhelming majority of people in the game world will never have seen any positive proof of such a thing.

First there's the rarity of spellcasters in general, then the much greater rarity of those with access to transplanar magic other than the summon monster spells. I think the earliest you're even capable of leaving the material plane to visit other realms removed from it (without walking there through natural rifts and portals anyway) is something like 7th level.

We only have one CERN, and there are only a few thousand scientists with the right competence to figure out the jumble of data it produces and say "according to this, we can say X and Y about subatomic particles". And yet we do know those particles exist and behave in certain ways.

This thing about science is that it only takes one person to discover it, and possibly a few more to independently confirm it, and then everyone know it.

On a more down-to-earth example, in the middle age the amount of people who went to china was even smaller than the amount of high level spellcasters in D&D. And yet it was known that there was china, though not many details. So I'd surmise that in D&D it makes sense that everyone knows that there is an afterlife and some people went there without being dead, but the details of their working would only be known to a small cadre of specialists.





I don't necessarily disagree with you in principle that the spells in question could be useful for establishing innocence, just cautioning against taking it as a given. You also seem to have made some rather bold presumptions about how the game is played. We really need the OP to establish these things before we should give advice based on them.


I've put a fair share of "if" in my post because I know most of it depends on the specific workings of the setting.

[BlacKnight]

That just runs into different practical concerns. Rarity of casters, limited spell-slots, the fact that massive debuffs that you're either unable or not allowed to resist can be readily argued to be torture, expense, expediency, etc.

I say that if a lv 6 spellcaster is a prostitute magic should be quite common in the setting. Any tribunal should have an inquisitor able to cast discern lies. Mybe even 2, for increased reliability.



Is it? Spellcasters are rare and lies are not. Modern courts don't allow polygraphic evidence because of their fallibility. Why should the magic version, which is just as fallible in its own way, be treated any differently? Adventurers and corpses are found in each others' company with stunning frequency and they aren't known for their... stability. They're not all heroes and even the ones that are heroes aren't necessarily perceived as such.

Zone of Truth and Discern Lies are extremely effective (apart for the save problem which affects only ZoT) if the defendant has to answer only with a yes or no.
Refusing to answer would be quite incriminatory, given that an innocent person has just to say yes or no when the inquisitor asks him to confirm his own version of the facts.

In the case in question:
"Did you kill the prostitute when she was casting a spell ?" "Yes".
"Did she warned you before she started casting the spell on which you killed her ?" "No".

[johnbragg]

We only have one CERN, and there are only a few thousand scientists with the right competence to figure out the jumble of data it produces and say "according to this, we can say X and Y about subatomic particles". And yet we do know those particles exist and behave in certain ways.

This thing about science is that it only takes one person to discover it, and possibly a few more to independently confirm it, and then everyone know it.

On a more down-to-earth example, in the middle age the amount of people who went to china was even smaller than the amount of high level spellcasters in D&D. And yet it was known that there was china, though not many details.

It was also "known" that PRester John and his kingdom were out there somewhere.

On the other hand, most people do accept the culturally provided information that they're given. So I'd say that just about everybody in a standard D&D setting is vaguely aware of and believes in the existence of whatever afterlifes are set up in the cosmology.

[Gnaeus]

So I will try to answer the Legal Self Defense question.

First off, in a more ''Like Earth before 1400 or so" time, Everyone is armed pretty much all the time. And this is even true in 2018 in a lot of places in the world. There are a lot of places you can go where you can expect everyone to be armed and have a weapon.

Second, a spell is generically like an item with no hostile component to classify it as a 'weapon' a lot like a tool. A lot of tools can be 'weapons', but they are not always weapons. So if you see someone with a tool, you can not assume they are hostile and using it as a weapon.

The same way you can not assume any spell is hostile.

So, the third thing is this takes us to 'intent'. Someone holding a weapon or tool, or casting a spell, does not have legal hostile intent unless it is obvious. For a handheld weapon just holding or pointing does not count; it would need to be a swing. Missie weapons, and things like bows, would count if pointed toward the individual. A tool or item really only counts if the use it like a weapon. A spell really only counts if it has some directed hostile effect.

In short: You can not assuming ANY spellcasting is hostile and react with deadly force.

Armed is a relative term. They were armed in the sense that a scythe, pitchfork, or agricultural flail can kill you. That’s why all those weird martial arts weapons exist, because nobility could have swords and peasants couldn’t but it’s sure possible to frack someone up with a threshing flail if you know what you are doing, and especially with slight modifications. On the other side of the world we have a pretty clear picture that the weapons carried in the peasants revolt either were or had recently been agricultural tools (like a scythe blade tied to a stick.)

But again, even today but especially over time, you would have a huge, huge disparity of outcome based on jurisdiction. Some outcomes could be.

We automatically disbelieve the prostitute (or the female or believe the wealthy individual, or the male), you win.
We automatically disbelieve the foreigner, you lose.
It comes down to a single lord’s decision. Better hope he didn’t like that sex worker.
There could be a judge with set rulings.
Trial by combat or ordeal.
An actual jury trial.

Do they need people for something? You could be conscripted, press ganged, or enslaved. Or sent to a colony. They may not care about evidence if there’s a quota to fill.

Magical evidence could be compulsory, allowed, or forbidden. Heck, I think I could argue any of those 3 positions in a modern court.

Is it a church court? Is it a secular court? What does the prevailing religion say about sex work, or foreigners.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

To the poster above me: you are entirely right. I assumed that the "relatively fair" meant "relatively modern", but if my GM's being a little dickish he could decide that "relatively fair" means fair in-setting and then pick any of the options you described. Seems unlikely, but...
Well, I'll keep everything you just said in mind for my next campaign! Thank you!


If we're going to be taking the magic of DnD's world into account, that raises another thorny question: is killing someone even necessarily wrong? I mean, the afterlife does provably exist, so are you aren't really cutting off their future in the same way killing does in real life, so is there really significant harm? She's still alive, and quiet possibly in a better state than before.
If you kill someone, you are harming their family, friends, loved ones and dependants. You should get punished for that.
And maybe the person you killed was Evil, in which case you've literally sent them to the Nine Hells or somesuch before they could redeem themselves in this life. Not very nice, that.


QFT.

If Raise Dead is not somehow (per DM Fiat) unavailable, he should simply volunteer to pay it asap, and show remorse otherwise, and unless this is a clear setup or a City ruled by a Kangoroo Court (or he a known criminal of course) there should be no further consequences.

He maybe should add a smallish compensation to the revived woman, after all, but thats Alignment-dependant. ^^
So you would accept being painfully murdered and then losing a level? Of course Raising her isn't enough - it doesn't even begin to erase all the damage. That would require a Heart's Ease (and maybe Programmed Amnesia or Modify Memory), True Resurrection, and if possible time travel to hide that she ever dies in the first place (because knowledge of her death probably hurt her loved ones, and cost her money and time). And by RAW that's pretty much impossible without insane levels of cheese.

[Nifft]

So you would accept being painfully murdered and then losing a level? Of course Raising her isn't enough - it doesn't even begin to erase all the damage.

Note to self: in case of accident, don't raise TalonOfAnathrax.

[GrayDeath]

T
So you would accept being painfully murdered and then losing a level? Of course Raising her isn't enough - it doesn't even begin to erase all the damage. That would require a Heart's Ease (and maybe Programmed Amnesia or Modify Memory), True Resurrection, and if possible time travel to hide that she ever dies in the first place (because knowledge of her death probably hurt her loved ones, and cost her money and time). And by RAW that's pretty much impossible without insane levels of cheese.

Wow, take a deep breath.

Once she is raised, she is no longer dead. Hence he cannot be (assuming more or less "regular fantasy laws") be accused of murder, especially since she can clarify that yes, she did cast a spell, and he can clarify that no, he did not intend to kill her butr simply overreacted.

Nowhere did Is ay it would "erase" anything (whatever you exactly mean by that), and as readable in the quote you quoted, making it up to her is, if the rogue is even remotely good, a given.

Of course, after all that is done, she may sue him for wrongful assault/Attack, and he her for faking her youth/dishonest business practices....if this was a Game about Lawsuits that is. ;)

[Necroticplague]

If you kill someone, you are harming their family, friends, loved ones and dependants. You should get punished for that.
Fair enough. Hadn't considered the impact on others besides her.

[Deophaun]

Once she is raised, she is no longer dead. Hence he cannot be (assuming more or less "regular fantasy laws") be accused of murder, especially since she can clarify that yes, she did cast a spell, and he can clarify that no, he did not intend to kill her butr simply overreacted.
There is an assumption here that the standard response to being subjected to a raise dead would come back to life. The spell says the soul must be "free and willing to return." What if it's the rare exception that souls are both, and that's why murder victims aren't just being raised left and right?

[Godskook]

Casting a discreet spell is the equivalent of drawing a discreet electronic device. It ~could~ be a fireball or detonator. Or it could be prestidigitation or one's cell phone. There's no *ACTUAL* excuse for what he did because basic cantrips establish that what she could be doing is something very very mundane.

That is, in a well-educated society.

Culture is the big factor here. How do people in that society view casting spells? Is it proper etiquette to cast in private? Like...it might be an objectively reasonable thing to do in a context-less environment, but context is critical, and it's something that the PC doesn't get to decide upon.

That's first of all. Second, we have the issue of proofs vs. accussations. He stands accussed of murder, and the evidence against him is *STRONG*, except for his own accussation of the deceased. If he can't reasonably prove that she was casting a spell, then we're not even going to -get- to the cultural-context argument of if what she was doing was ok in their culture. So that's a really critical point of contention.

Speak with Dead will be a great boon in mitigating his sentence, as reckless manslaughter might not carry as severe a penalty as a murder charge. It can be....massaged through the system, even, for some service to the kingdom. However, it'll *DOOM* an innocence verdict, as it'll demonstrate her lack of malice.

Zone of Truth will like-wise be helpful, but if he can play his cards right, the questions could deceptively exhonerate him entirely.

[Kelb_Panthera]

We only have one CERN, and there are only a few thousand scientists with the right competence to figure out the jumble of data it produces and say "according to this, we can say X and Y about subatomic particles". And yet we do know those particles exist and behave in certain ways.

But the more basic sciences that give you a certain amount of faith in the scientific method can be demonstrated at a very basic level by literally anyone that grasps the concepts. There's no analogue to this with magic. Precious few people in a typical game world have access to magic -at all- much less in a way that makes the concepts involved accessible. I can show my nephew (8) some basic newtonian interactions between objects and explain them to him in a way that not only makes sense but that he can check for himself with some fairly basic maths. Tim the hedge-wizard can explain how teleport or ethereal jaunt works in theory but if he's not yet of sufficient level (very likely) he can't actually demonstrate at all, never mind in a way that whomever he's explaining it to can check.


This thing about science is that it only takes one person to discover it, and possibly a few more to independently confirm it, and then everyone know it.

Magic is not science. There's more than a few parallels that make understanding the conceit that it is very easy to understand but it lacks a certain fundamental quality; replicability. The only people that can check behind spellcasters on their notes and theorems is a sufficiently leveled caster of the same type. Until you get to a fairly rarified level of science, anyone willing to put down the time, money, and effort can run experiments.


On a more down-to-earth example, in the middle age the amount of people who went to china was even smaller than the amount of high level spellcasters in D&D. And yet it was known that there was china, though not many details. So I'd surmise that in D&D it makes sense that everyone knows that there is an afterlife and some people went there without being dead, but the details of their working would only be known to a small cadre of specialists.

They may well "know" that there are fantastic places that take long, arduous journeys through dangerous locales to reach but the idea that these places are where you go when you die is another matter altogether. The outer realms are, by far, the hardest to reach without casting spells and, when you get there, they're nigh-infinite expanses. The odds that you could find a dead loved one in a single life-time without employing serious magic are infinitesimal. Even if you could, you'd likely never realize it when you consider that they almost certainly won't recognize you and likely bear only a passing resemblance to their living appearance, per the petitioner template in MotP.

More succinctly: believing these places are out there somewhere is one thing, believing they're the afterlife is another. Essentially, this:


It was also "known" that PRester John and his kingdom were out there somewhere.

On the other hand, most people do accept the culturally provided information that they're given. So I'd say that just about everybody in a standard D&D setting is vaguely aware of and believes in the existence of whatever afterlifes are set up in the cosmology.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________


I say that if a lv 6 spellcaster is a prostitute magic should be quite common in the setting. Any tribunal should have an inquisitor able to cast discern lies. Mybe even 2, for increased reliability.

I wouldn't take a single NPC as representative of the entire setting. Sometimes talented, intelligent people end up in weird circumstances because of poor decisions made in their youth or even happenings completely beyond their control. Life is stranger than fiction and this wouldn't even be that strange for fiction.



Zone of Truth and Discern Lies are extremely effective (apart for the save problem which affects only ZoT) if the defendant has to answer only with a yes or no.

Yes/No questions can be misleading in themselves even before you consider that imperfect phrasing can make either a valid answer. Even if we assume that the court's goal is, in fact, to reach the truth rather than simply to convict; this is fuzzier than you're making it seem. Further, at the end of the day, the caster wasn't there and he's the only person that knows whether his discern lies effect was actually successful or not. While a court may well be more inclined to take the word of a state official on such matters than they would some random jackass off the street, it's -still- just an expert witness. The possibility of corruption, whether it's acted on or not, has to be taken into account when designing a legal system.


Refusing to answer would be quite incriminatory, given that an innocent person has just to say yes or no when the inquisitor asks him to confirm his own version of the facts.

This amounts to allowing the defendant no active defense of his innocence based on the result of the word of a court official who's tool is -known- to be less than infallible. Gaming this would be simplicity itself to would-be corruptors of the system. There's plenty of reason beyond the current case to object to being subjected to magics that poke at your mind as well. A simple right to privacy or protection from being compelled to testify against yourself would make such methods suspect at best even if they were infallible simply because the caster is -not- infallible.

Again, because I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle, I'm -not- saying these spells should never be used as part of legal proceedings. I'm saying that they shouldn't be given undue weight when they are.

[Zanos]

Yes/No questions can be misleading in themselves even before you consider that imperfect phrasing can make either a valid answer. Even if we assume that the court's goal is, in fact, to reach the truth rather than simply to convict; this is fuzzier than you're making it seem. Further, at the end of the day, the caster wasn't there and he's the only person that knows whether his discern lies effect was actually successful or not. While a court may well be more inclined to take the word of a state official on such matters than they would some random jackass off the street, it's -still- just an expert witness. The possibility of corruption, whether it's acted on or not, has to be taken into account when designing a legal system.
Assuming that the system doesn't work because an official will become corrupt will cause any system to work poorly. What if the King is corrupt? What if the President is corrupt? We have external checks for these things.

An easy example is making the person casting discern lies the Judge. The Judge isn't the only source of truth in the world, and if he regularly sabotages cases he's still responsible to the rest of the court system at large. That doesn't mean that he doesn't wield considerable influence within his own courtroom, though.

[BlacKnight]

Yes/No questions can be misleading in themselves even before you consider that imperfect phrasing can make either a valid answer. Even if we assume that the court's goal is, in fact, to reach the truth rather than simply to convict; this is fuzzier than you're making it seem. Further, at the end of the day, the caster wasn't there and he's the only person that knows whether his discern lies effect was actually successful or not. While a court may well be more inclined to take the word of a state official on such matters than they would some random jackass off the street, it's -still- just an expert witness. The possibility of corruption, whether it's acted on or not, has to be taken into account when designing a legal system.

Well those spells are problematic because it's not clear if language is objective. But if it's not then they are useless and I don't think that the designer made those as waste space. Thus language has to be objective in D&D settings, and the only ways out are those described... which are basically none.

It goes without saying that law men should be good at formulating their questions, but probably they would use standard qustions slighty altered for the specific case.
The way I would design a trial is: the judge interrogate freely the convict and they conclude on a version of the facts. Then they decide on the questions. After that the caster (or 2 casters if possible) is called and the convict has to answer the questions under ZoT or Detect Lies (in the case of ZoT maybe it will be repeated multiple times to be sure). If everything goes well the version of the facts becomes judicial truth and the judge makes his decision.
If the convict doesn't collaborate of lies... bad for him, because such a system greatly helps the innocents and those who collaborate.

About unclear answers can you explain how the two that I provided as example in my previous post are unclear ? Just to discuss the issue with a practical example.




This amounts to allowing the defendant no active defense of his innocence based on the result of the word of a court official who's tool is -known- to be less than infallible. Gaming this would be simplicity itself to would-be corruptors of the system. There's plenty of reason beyond the current case to object to being subjected to magics that poke at your mind as well. A simple right to privacy or protection from being compelled to testify against yourself would make such methods suspect at best even if they were infallible simply because the caster is -not- infallible.

Again, because I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle, I'm -not- saying these spells should never be used as part of legal proceedings. I'm saying that they shouldn't be given undue weight when they are.

Medieval trials were terrible and while D&D settings are varied they are generally dangerous places, so I wouldn't count on having 1st world justice as comparison.
Testimony against yourself can look bad today, but would you prefer torture or trial by combat ?
And you shouldn't underestimate the appeal of the argument "innocent people will never been convicted with this system".
Granted there is the corruption problem, but that's not solved by other systems.
You say that the caster could lie and condemn the convict. But in a standard trial the judge could still condemn basing on anything. And if they have multiple casters the problem would be greatly reduced.
Let's take the case in exam. What should the judge do ? It seem like standard homicide. But the PC could ask for the Disguise Lies. If the caster is honest he could get a reduced punishment. If not he gets condemned, but that was a given either way.

[SangoProduction]

Note to self: in case of accident, don't raise TalonOfAnathrax.

lol. Probably getting too close to RL here, but I recall that there was an incident where someone who gave CPR to someone actually had a sexual assault lawsuit thrown against them. This reply reminds me of the reaction to that story.

[Nifft]

lol. Probably getting too close to RL here, but I recall that there was an incident where someone who gave CPR to someone actually had a sexual assault lawsuit thrown against them. This reply reminds me of the reaction to that story.

There are so-called "Good Samaritan" laws in some places to prevent that sort of thing.

Those sorts of laws might not exist in a medieval setting, so you might be liable for damages caused by your attempt to help the plaintiff.

If you want to play a very cynical, unsympathetic, and depressingly mercenary game, that might be exactly the sort of setting ingredient that would help implicitly influence PC actions.

[Gnaeus]

A simple right to privacy or protection from being compelled to testify against yourself would make such methods suspect at best even if they were infallible simply because the caster is -not- infallible.

Again, because I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle, I'm -not- saying these spells should never be used as part of legal proceedings. I'm saying that they shouldn't be given undue weight when they are.

Why would a fantasy court have a right against self incrimination? The only reason WE have it is to avoid placing a criminal in the “cruel trifecta” in which a guilty person, faced with the possibility of punishment if they testify truthfully or refuse to testify, could endanger their immortal soul by committing perjury thus making the court complicit in their damnation. Since 1. Committing perjury doesn’t seem to matter much in the D&D afterlife and 2. If you could force them to testify truthfully or put them in a position in which their lies would be detected the cruel trifecta doesn’t arrive, there is no good reason why they would enshrine a right against self incrimination.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Assuming that the system doesn't work because an official will become corrupt will cause any system to work poorly. What if the King is corrupt? What if the President is corrupt? We have external checks for these things.

The same is true of presuming it won't be corrupted at all. Corruption -inevitably- creeps into every system. That's why it's important to take measures designed to mitigate and reverse corruption. What -if- the king is corrupt? That's why you have a coalition of court nobles doing what they can to keep his power in check rather than let him have absolute, uncontested reign.

In this case, use the spells but be skeptical of the results and don't just condemn the target outright because he made a save.



An easy example is making the person casting discern lies the Judge. The Judge isn't the only source of truth in the world, and if he regularly sabotages cases he's still responsible to the rest of the court system at large. That doesn't mean that he doesn't wield considerable influence within his own courtroom, though.

Now you're talking theocracy. Discern lies is simply not available to any non-divine caster and is 3rd level at its lowest. You'd have to occupy the benches of every court in the system with 5th level or higher clerics, archivists, etc or reserve it for only high-profile cases, in which case you have to have a system that doesn't demand the spell.


Well those spells are problematic because it's not clear if language is objective. But if it's not then they are useless and I don't think that the designer made those as waste space. Thus language has to be objective in D&D settings, and the only ways out are those described... which are basically none.

Holy crap, no. Language can be used in an objective way but it's nothing approaching objective on the whole, not even close. Just look at the sheer variety of English dialects for an easy example. Colloquialisms, broader idioms, slang; language is -not- objective at all.


It goes without saying that law men should be good at formulating their questions, but probably they would use standard qustions slighty altered for the specific case.

Easier said than done. Cases can vary pretty widely, especially if there's any significant complexity to the law itself.


The way I would design a trial is: the judge interrogate freely the defendant and they conclude on a version of the facts. Then they decide on the questions. After that the caster (or 2 casters if possible) is called and the defendant has to answer the questions under ZoT or Detect Lies (in the case of ZoT maybe it will be repeated multiple times to be sure). If everything goes well the version of the facts becomes judicial truth and the judge makes his decision.

That's.... horrifying. You realize that, although not in this case, people can have different recollections of events without anyone knowingly lying about any of it? That's before you even consider the idea of people's minds being magically screwed with or defenses being mounted against the lie-detection/prevention magic or trying to manipulate the judge either magically or otherwise? There's a reason the idea of a jury was created.



If the defendant doesn't collaborate of lies... bad for him, because such a system greatly helps the innocents and those who collaborate.

I'm having trouble parsing this. I -think- you're saying that a lack of cooperation from the defendant looks bad. However, being subjected to compulsory effects and/ or mind-reading magic is a pretty gross personal violation if the target -is- innocent, something you -cannot- know beforehand. As for the system you've proposed helping the innocent, it's not flawless. It -will- railroad some innocents, unavoidably. Sooner or later a judge will make an error in judgement, even barring corruption or outside interference, that convicts a person who is not guilty. It's flat-out not a question of "if" but of "when" and "how often."


About unclear answers can you explain how the two that I provided as example in my previous post are unclear ? Just to discuss the issue with a practical example.

This case is pretty straight-forward. There's only one version of events to get a gauge on (barring speak with dead) and the defendant, presumably, hasn't committed any other crimes within this jurisdiction and/or isn't a spy for a foreign nation, member of an criminal organization, or in possession of any other personal or state secrets of greater impact than the death of this lady of the evening. As such, I don't think there's any reason for him to want or need to lie.

You don't base a system on the best-case scenario of everyone involved being entirely on-board and cooperative at every stage of progression. You presume it will be resisted and/ or have a chance of failure at every stage and design it to work in spite of such factors.

As an example to help clarify though; see my previous example of evading. If it's instead the bailiff/judge/whatever asking the rogue involved in the heist, "did you take the jewels from the vault" with the restriction of answering either "yes" or "no" the rogue can -still- answer either "yes" or "no" without lying; "yes," he was part of the group that took the jewels or "no," he did not take the jewels from the vault personally.

Very specific, careful phrasing -can- help to avoid this but it can also confuse the person being questioned and that's not helpful at all.




Medieval trials were terrible and while D&D settings are varied they are generally dangerous places, so I wouldn't count on having 1st world justice as comparison.
Testimony against yourself can look bad today, but would you prefer torture or trial by combat ?
And you shouldn't underestimate the appeal of the argument "innocent people will never been convicted with this system".
Granted there is the corruption problem, but that's not solved by other systems.
You say that the caster could lie and condemn the convict. But in a standard trial the judge could still condemn basing on anything. And if they have multiple casters the problem would be greatly reduced.
Let's take the case in exam. What should the judge do ? It seem like standard homicide. But the PC could ask for the Disguise Lies. If the caster is honest he could get a reduced punishment. If not he gets condemned, but that was a given either way.

I'm well aware but we seem to be presuming something fairly modern for this exercise for the moment. It's not at all out of the question that the rogue could be subjected to any of a number of inferior systems that will railroad him toward a terrible fate but there's not much for us to discuss if that's the case since evidence might not matter at all in that case.

It could be that they use an entirely testimonial system wherein the most important thing would be the ability to get more people to speak glowingly on his behalf than there are people who are upset about the death of the victim. Obviously, getting word to his party becomes top-priority in that case. It's a whole lot less nuanced and doesn't make much of a discussion though, does it?

[PacMan2247]

It probably would not be an effective defense. The particular laws in effect would certainly matter here, but given the number of spells out there that aren't offensive, I think it would probably take testimony from at least one witness in good standing who was not only there, but capable of the Spellcraft check necessary to identify the spell she was casting. Assuming the rogue is questioned under one of the variety of ways to compel him to speak truthfully, he's probably looking at the local equivalent of manslaughter charges, since he didn't go there intending to kill the prostitute, but still definitely jumped the gun on this. He might have a chance at avoiding prison if she has nearby kin who might accept a blood price, and if the municipality is willing to consider a fine and banishment (either or both possibly mitigated if he's been of service to someone with authority) in lieu of a prison sentence.

[Deophaun]

On the issue of the trial, this is all based on the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. It's more likely to be "guilty until proven innocent." They aren't going to bother to use divinations if they think you're guilty. You are going to use divinations. Or not, if you don't want to.

But the presence of divinations is a flat out boon to the accused, because he's already guilty so divinations cannot hurt him more. The bad news is that the accused is probably going to have to pay for any out of his own pocket. The really bad news is that this is going to be horribly corrupt and anyone wealthy enough is going to find some "respectable" auger to tell the court that yup, the accused opened up his mind and his memories are clean and the spirits said the silver-born man did the dead. Who's the silver-born man? The spirits are vague, but it's obviously not the accused.

[Jay R]

Casting a spell is not an attack on him. He would need to show (under the modern U.S. law system) a reasonable cause for believing he was threatened.

"She was casting a spell" is not that. But "she was casting a spell and is known to have attacked strangers with magic" might be, if he can demonstrate it.

And there's no reason to believe the courts take a modern approach.

But the truth is that he had no reason to believe he was threatened, and he is in fact a murderer. What he needs is for a cleric friends to show up and raise her at his cost. That might be taken as evidence to indicate that he didn't want her dead, and that the death was an accident.

[hamishspence]

Wow, take a deep breath.

Once she is raised, she is no longer dead. Hence he cannot be (assuming more or less "regular fantasy laws") be accused of murder, especially since she can clarify that yes, she did cast a spell, and he can clarify that no, he did not intend to kill her butr simply overreacted.


To quote The Patrician of Ankh-Morpork: Discworld:

"If it takes an Igor to bring you back, you were dead. Briefly dead, true, which is why the murderer will be briefly hanged".

[vasilidor]

first, what is the common perception of magic in the setting? I can very easily see a setting where the only sane response to seeing someone cast a spell is to strike them down for fear of curse or fireball, because those are the only spells that a common person would know about. I have played in campaigns were if an unknown entity started casting, you killed them before they could finish, or you were finished.
you should note that this was an earlier edition with a DM who believed that if you were not a wizard you knew jack about magic and how it worked, end of discussion (clerics did not need to understand anything beyond pray, and get magic, therefore did not).
Still would have skipped town, and never came back to it.

[Matron Mother]

Reasonable? No.

Plausible? Maybe. Especially if he could provide some (fake?) intent on her part. "I asked her for the money she owed me (or demanded a refund), and she threatened me, and then started casting something."
But Detect Lies (or Speak with Dead) can unravel that in a hurry.

Just the act of "using magic" doesn't mean it's a weapon any more than "using a knife" means I was going to stab you.
I could easily be taking it out of my pocket to cut my apple, or open a box, or sharpen it.


I'd imagine providing "fake" evidence in a court of law of D&D wouldn't work well since they'd probably have someone Zone of Truth him rather than swear on the Bible if you get my meaning.

[Andezzar]

To quote The Patrician of Ankh-Morpork: Discworld:

"If it takes an Igor to bring you back, you were dead. Briefly dead, true, which is why the murderer will be briefly hanged".Vetinari has so many good quotes. Too bad we won't get any new ones from him.

[Acanous]

we're going through a lot of semantics and crunch here, when the solution to OP's problem lies in the setting.
Places like Cormyr or the aforementioned area in Shining South, "She's a Witch" is enough of a defence to get you off free and clear.

What setting are you in? Which city in that setting? We have grognards of all stripes here, if you can name the city and setting we can tell you exactly how much trouble you're in.


Unless it's the DM's own setting, in which case you're completely at the mercy of *his* idea of justice.

[BlacKnight]

Holy crap, no. Language can be used in an objective way but it's nothing approaching objective on the whole, not even close. Just look at the sheer variety of English dialects for an easy example. Colloquialisms, broader idioms, slang; language is -not- objective at all.

The proble is that if one can say "I think that horse means dog" to avoid lying then the spell is useless.
The problem is that the truth of a sentence is a human construct, not a physical reality. But the spell to work require it to be an objective reality.
Is a similar problem to alignment.


That's.... horrifying. You realize that, although not in this case, people can have different recollections of events without anyone knowingly lying about any of it? That's before you even consider the idea of people's minds being magically screwed with or defenses being mounted against the lie-detection/prevention magic or trying to manipulate the judge either magically or otherwise? There's a reason the idea of a jury was created.

Apart from the fact that the jury is a terrible idea (if you want more judges just get more judges, like you should for criminal cases), yes people can have wrong memories, either by nature or magic.
But the truth spells should be used when you have problematic witnesses, not when things are crystal clear. If you can solve the case without truth spells that's good. Otherwise what's your suggestion ? That the judge decides on his own which witnesses are reliable and which aren't ? That's has a problem: the judge can be corrupt !

And if the judge, the caster and everybody else is evil or mind controlled the convict is doomed, but that's not a system specific fault.

I seem to remember that modify memory can be removed, don't know if by dispel magic or remove curse.


I'm having trouble parsing this. I -think- you're saying that a lack of cooperation from the defendant looks bad. However, being subjected to compulsory effects and/ or mind-reading magic is a pretty gross personal violation if the target -is- innocent, something you -cannot- know beforehand. As for the system you've proposed helping the innocent, it's not flawless. It -will- railroad some innocents, unavoidably. Sooner or later a judge will make an error in judgement, even barring corruption or outside interference, that convicts a person who is not guilty. It's flat-out not a question of "if" but of "when" and "how often."

All systems can condemn innocents. Can you make an example when somebody gets condemned with truth spells but would have been released without ?


As an example to help clarify though; see my previous example of evading. If it's instead the bailiff/judge/whatever asking the rogue involved in the heist, "did you take the jewels from the vault" with the restriction of answering either "yes" or "no" the rogue can -still- answer either "yes" or "no" without lying; "yes," he was part of the group that took the jewels or "no," he did not take the jewels from the vault personally.

Very specific, careful phrasing -can- help to avoid this but it can also confuse the person being questioned and that's not helpful at all.

Why do they suspect the rogue of being guilty ? Did they found the jewels on him ? Did they see him fleeing from the vault ?
Also as I said before the spells shouldn't be used for interrogation, but for confirming a version of the facts. The answers should be determinated before so that the convict agrees on them and knows what to say.
So if the rogue says that he was sleeping and he wasn't part of the gang they would ask stuff like:"did you entered in the vault that night ?", "do you know/saw somebody who took the jewels from the vault ?", "have you ever left the inn that night ?". If he can say "No, no, no" the entire accusation would fall flat.
The rogue could even propose some questions.
And if the judge is corrupt ? Than he's doomed either way.

[InvisibleBison]

The proble is that if one can say "I think that horse means dog" to avoid lying then the spell is useless.
The problem is that the truth of a sentence is a human construct, not a physical reality. But the spell to work require it to be an objective reality.
Is a similar problem to alignment.

Discern lies doesn't detect whether or not the statement is true. It detects whether or not the speaker is lying. It's entirely possible for the subject to say something that is actually true and have discern lies report the statement as a lie, if the subject incorrectly thinks the statement is false.

[King of Nowhere]

This amounts to allowing the defendant no active defense of his innocence based on the result of the word of a court official who's tool is -known- to be less than infallible. Gaming this would be simplicity itself to would-be corruptors of the system. There's plenty of reason beyond the current case to object to being subjected to magics that poke at your mind as well. A simple right to privacy or protection from being compelled to testify against yourself would make such methods suspect at best even if they were infallible simply because the caster is -not- infallible.

On one side assuming a medieval setting with medieval trials, on the other assuming modern sensibilities. Of course one has to decide where the setting falls. we can't argue for "trial by ordeal because it is a backward society" and "no magic is used because it infringes privacy".

[BlacKnight]

Discern lies doesn't detect whether or not the statement is true. It detects whether or not the speaker is lying. It's entirely possible for the subject to say something that is actually true and have discern lies report the statement as a lie, if the subject incorrectly thinks the statement is false.

People can believe false stuff even with objective language, it's a totally different issue.

Now how can someone believe a false statement to be true ?
He can remeber things in a wrong way, or memories could have been altered with magic.
If the former nothing can be done, but I suppose people don't forget easily stuff like "I killed X", "I stole from the bank" and similar. "what color was the car" is something that could be remebered wrongly, but it's also something that shouldn't decide a trial.
If we are talking magic, there are ways around that. A simple dispel magic should work (and you obviously have to dispel the defendant anyway).

[Gnaeus]

The way I would do it, in a large city, you make a deal with a lawful god of justice.

Holding criminals in pretrial, have them (or their council) agree with the opposing council on 1-5 short sentences relating to key disputed facts of the trial. Here, they might be
I killed the prostitute
She was casting an unknown spell
I believed I was in danger.

Then, on testimony day, you line up the accused between the guards. 3-5 clerics in a line all cast zone of truth spaced out in a hallway. The prisoners walk forward, stand in a certain spot, and state their sentences. Then move forward to the next zone and do it again. Assuming you can say one sentence per round, and you could put 2 prisoners in a zone 20 feet apart and have the guards and witness clearly hear their testimony, properly organized, you should be able to fact check some 6-10 prisoners per ZoT casting (minimum 30 rounds from level 3 casters). If you can’t say your statements in any zone, you fail. Impose a perjury penalty for failure.

Even someone with a good save might be cautious about trying 5 consecutive Will saves. Make sure the high priest sometimes does a rotation and everyone knows it.

Is it absolutely foolproof? No. No evidence is. But it’s likely to be more reliable than eyewitness testimony or fingerprints or a lot of other evidence we use. You could even take the experience of the casting clerics into account when weighing the ZoT evidence, like we would with experts.

[Necroticplague]

Zone of Truth is a mind-affecting compulsion enchantment. So immunity to it is only slightly less common than air, and frankly trying to be immune to it isn’t even suspicious (since it’s in the same category as Mindrape and Dominate Person).

[Gnaeus]

Zone of Truth is a mind-affecting compulsion enchantment. So immunity to it is only slightly less common than air, and frankly trying to be immune to it isn’t even suspicious (since it’s in the same category as Mindrape and Dominate Person).

Detect magic is a 0 level cantrip. You are a prisoner, deprived of your gear and components and ordered not to buff yourself beforehand. And if it is known or suspected that you are a very high level caster further precautions can be taken. That’s like the difference between how we convict an armed robber at a 7-11 and how we convict an enemy spy. Yeah, a high level caster can likely beat the system. But a high level caster committed the murder from half a continent away and sure never got apprehended by the city watch.

[Deophaun]

Detect magic is a 0 level cantrip. You are a prisoner, deprived of your gear and components and ordered not to buff yourself beforehand.
Why? You're guilty, otherwise you wouldn't be a prisoner. It's up to you to prove your innocence. If you are innocent, you should be chomping at the bit to have your mind read and escape the ax. That you aren't is just further proof of your guilt. We're telling the headsman not to be too concerned with the sharpness of his instrument.

[hamishspence]

we're going through a lot of semantics and crunch here, when the solution to OP's problem lies in the setting.
Places like Cormyr or the aforementioned area in Shining South, "She's a Witch" is enough of a defence to get you off free and clear.

Halruaa in the Shining South is a magocracy - all the people holding real political power, are mages.

Which is probably why they recognise wands as potentially deadly weapons, and "pointing a wand" as something reasonable to treat as a deadly threat - they know exactly how dangerous magic can be - because that's the kingdom's speciality.

[Andor13]

It depends. (duh)

Legal systems in the real world vary wildly in manner of trial, manner of punishment, what crime it would be (or if), or even if charges could be brought.

Ancient China? Convictions are acceptable only with confession, but you can use torture to extract confessions. Ancient Athens? Only a family member of the woman could bring charges. Modern New York? Almost certainly one would be looking at prosecution for murder (but rape charges explicitly don't apply against prostitutes.) Modern Texas? I doubt one would even be taken to the police station.

What are the local laws concerning spell casters? Hell it's possibly that not only is the rogue not in trouble but the local wizards guild owes him the bounty on unlicensed spell-casters.
What are the laws governing self defense?
What do trials look like? There is no particular need for them to make much sense by our standards. (All defendants regardless of crime must answer the riddles of a Sphinx, those who fail get eaten, those who walk out, are cleared of charges.)

Too many what ifs, just a bunch of things for the GM to think about.

[Necroticplague]

Detect magic is a 0 level cantrip. You are a prisoner, deprived of your gear and components and ordered not to buff yourself beforehand. And if it is known or suspected that you are a very high level caster further precautions can be taken. That’s like the difference between how we convict an armed robber at a 7-11 and how we convict an enemy spy. Yeah, a high level caster can likely beat the system. But a high level caster committed the murder from half a continent away and sure never got apprehended by the city watch.
I wasn't thinking about spellcasters with their constant Mind Blanks or Protection from Law up. I was thinking of mundane people with such basic things as Deformity: Madness, Sculpt Self, and the Undead or Construct types.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The proble is that if one can say "I think that horse means dog" to avoid lying then the spell is useless.

They can't just say they think that. They have to actually think it. That's the difference. The spell, as InvisibleBison points out, doesn't tell you what the actual truth of the matter is. That's not it's purpose. It tells you only whether or not the target is lying. Telling the truth in a misleading way isn't lying. It's certainly deception and a pretty basic misinformation technique but it's -not- speaking a false statement.


The problem is that the truth of a sentence is a human construct, not a physical reality. But the spell to work require it to be an objective reality

It not only requires no such thing but even explicitly cautions that the kind of thing I'm describing is one of its weaknesses. Giving spells more power than the rules say they have is part of why GMs resort to unnecessary bans. :smallsigh:




Apart from the fact that the jury is a terrible idea (if you want more judges just get more judges, like you should for criminal cases), yes people can have wrong memories, either by nature or magic.

… this is going to get into deep political theory and maybe even politics proper if we go down this road. I'll leave it at "I disagree," and move on.


But the truth spells should be used when you have problematic witnesses, not when things are crystal clear. If you can solve the case without truth spells that's good. Otherwise what's your suggestion ? That the judge decides on his own which witnesses are reliable and which aren't ? That's has a problem: the judge can be corrupt !

A problematic witness will, by definition, be resistant to such magic and even when it succeeds can work around it unless you harm or threaten to harm him. If things are crystal clear, you don't need witnesses at all. My suggestion is that the judge use his (get this;) judgement and ask his questions anyway, while making the appropriate sense motive checks and considering the other surrounding evidence. That someone would be resistant to having their mind forcibly opened up and pried into should be incredibly obvious even if they are innocent. Nothing but the caster's own will keeps him on the subject at hand or compells -him- to speak truthfully.


And if the judge, the caster and everybody else is evil or mind controlled the convict is doomed, but that's not a system specific fault.

Corruption is not a binary "is it or isn't it" thing when it comes to any system built around human(oid) interaction. Some people within the system will be corrupt, others won't. You build the system with this idea in mind so that the people who aren't corrupt can mitigate the deleterious effects of those that are corrupt. By the same token, people make mistakes so you also put in some degree of redundancy to mitigate that fact.

Simplicity is vicerally satisfying but rarely is it properly thorough when errors can destroy people. If your system demands everyone in it behave properly to function, it won't function very often if it functions at all.


I seem to remember that modify memory can be removed, don't know if by dispel magic or remove curse.

Permanent effect. It's subject to dispelling. It's not the only way to screw with someone's memory though.


All systems can condemn innocents. Can you make an example when somebody gets condemned with truth spells but would have been released without ?

Effortlessly. Town drunk happens to be found on the scene of a murder because he was blacked out in the same alley. The victim is his drinking buddy that everyone in the bar saw him fighting with the night before. He has no recollection of the last 10 hours but, having been a conscript in the last war, he's killed people before. Before he's ever questioned by any official, the whispers of onlookers and the demons of his past convince him he did it, that he killed his friend in a drunken frenzy while he was blacked out. When the judge asks him, "Did you kill him?" he says "yes" because he "knows" the magic the courts use prevents and points out lies. There's no reason for anyone to be overmuch worried about a bum knifing so the investigation of the scene is cursory and nothing to suggest any other course of events is found.

In fact, the drinking buddy was actually a spy from a neighboring nation and was assassinated because he got made but this, being a matter of national security, never reaches the ears of anyone who doesn't need to know, including any investigators or the judge.

The drunk is hanged for a murder that he didn't commit.

Without the compulsive magic, maybe a few more questions get asked about how and why he killed his friend but "he said he did it and the judge's magic said it was the truth" so they wrapped it up and moved on.


Why do they suspect the rogue of being guilty ? Did they found the jewels on him ? Did they see him fleeing from the vault ?
Also as I said before the spells shouldn't be used for interrogation, but for confirming a version of the facts. The answers should be determinated before so that the convict agrees on them and knows what to say.
So if the rogue says that he was sleeping and he wasn't part of the gang they would ask stuff like:"did you entered in the vault that night ?", "do you know/saw somebody who took the jewels from the vault ?", "have you ever left the inn that night ?". If he can say "No, no, no" the entire accusation would fall flat.
The rogue could even propose some questions.
And if the judge is corrupt ? Than he's doomed either way.

You're missing the point. Sure, the factual truth of matters can be reached if you dig and build up a case. The point was that truth seeking magic can be decieved without telling deliberate lies. Truth spinning is a well known thing.

[Nifft]

I wasn't thinking about spellcasters with their constant Mind Blanks or Protection from Law up. I was thinking of mundane people with such basic things as Deformity: Madness, Sculpt Self, and the Undead or Construct types.

"Mmm, indeed. The average commoner is assuredly Vile, often deformed, and you can't ever count on one for rational thought." -- a noble, probably


But seriously, "mundane people" generally doesn't mean constructs or undead, and Sculpt Self is a Dragon Mag custom-race subsystem -- anyone using that is creating a unique life-form, and it would be a bit of a stretch to call the lifeform "mundane".

Plus the guy with Deformity: Madness might be summarily ruled insane, and hauled off to a madhouse without any chance at a criminal trial.

Vile feats are explicitly supernatural, and represent non-mundane corruption.


tl;dr - If you give them "basic things" like very advanced non-basic things, then sure. But those things are non-basic.

[Necroticplague]

You're missing the point. Sure, the factual truth of matters can be reached if you dig and build up a case. The point was that truth seeking magic can be decieved without telling deliberate lies. Truth spinning is a well known thing.

Especially if one uses phrases that don't technically have any truth value to test for. Oh sure, "I'd argue against/dispute that." sounds like a way of saying 'no', but technically doesn't.

[Necroticplague]

"Mmm, indeed. The average commoner is assuredly Vile, often deformed, and you can't ever count on one for rational thought." -- a noble, probably


But seriously, "mundane people" generally doesn't mean constructs or undead, and Sculpt Self is a Dragon Mag custom-race subsystem -- anyone using that is creating a unique life-form, and it would be a bit of a stretch to call the lifeform "mundane".

Plus the guy with Deformity: Madness might be summarily ruled insane, and hauled off to a madhouse without any chance at a criminal trial.

Vile feats are explicitly supernatural, and represent non-mundane corruption.


tl;dr - If you give them "basic things" like very advanced non-basic things, then sure. But those things are non-basic.

Calling them 'basic' might have been a bit of a stretch, but may main point is that 'they keep up detect magic to see if you're immune' wouldn't work.

[Knaight]

The pulling a weapon analogy is off here - what's going on is more someone pulling an unknown object out of a bag large enough to contain a weapon. Officially even most medieval societies wouldn't consider this a reasonable case of self defense in the abstract, let alone most modern societies.

The specific case is a different matter. If the murderer is the right sort of person, and the victim the right sort of person, the defense needed can be incredibly minimal or absolutely ridiculous, ranging from cases along the lines of "while I was in this heavy vehicle, this totally unarmed person outside was walking a little close, I felt threatened, and I shot them" being taken as valid and "this squad of heavily armed people kicked down my door in the middle of the night, and swarmed in with weapons while I was sleeping" not being taken as valid.

If the specific situation here is closer to the former case, the PC is probably fine. If it's closer to the latter, or even fairly neutral, they're likely hosed. As for where it falls on that line, that's incredibly setting specific, and depends mostly on how out of town strangers, known adventurers, high class prostitutes*, and mages are treated. We know it's a large trading city, which at least implies some minimum standard for out of town strangers, though there's still plenty of room for it to be relatively low (if not at the levels that can be hit in insular communities). Most of the rest is up in the air.

*This is an assumption, but the description given of a highly socially competent mid level character who is also a mage points to it.


If we're going to be taking the magic of DnD's world into account, that raises another thorny question: is killing someone even necessarily wrong? I mean, the afterlife does provably exist, so are you aren't really cutting off their future in the same way killing does in real life, so is there really significant harm? She's still alive, and quiet possibly in a better state than before.

Under this line of reasoning there are several real world societies that you'd expect to not care about murder, some modern, more historical, all convinced that the afterlife is proven to exist by their standards of proof. Yet they're all hostile to murder in law, and to murder of at least some people by at least some other people in practice.

[BlacKnight]

They can't just say they think that. They have to actually think it. That's the difference. The spell, as InvisibleBison points out, doesn't tell you what the actual truth of the matter is. That's not it's purpose. It tells you only whether or not the target is lying. Telling the truth in a misleading way isn't lying. It's certainly deception and a pretty basic misinformation technique but it's -not- speaking a false statement.

The spell tells you objetively if the target is lying. The point is not what the reality of the matter is, the point is that the target can't say something he knows it's false.
Unless (and that's the problem of objective language) he can choose to intend the words with a different meaning. "Did you lefet the inn that night ?" and he says "No" because he intend the inn as the entire city, even if he knows perfectly what the judge intended.
But if that's the case the spell it's useless.


A problematic witness will, by definition, be resistant to such magic and even when it succeeds can work around it unless you harm or threaten to harm him. If things are crystal clear, you don't need witnesses at all. My suggestion is that the judge use his (get this;) judgement and ask his questions anyway, while making the appropriate sense motive checks and considering the other surrounding evidence. That someone would be resistant to having their mind forcibly opened up and pried into should be incredibly obvious even if they are innocent. Nothing but the caster's own will keeps him on the subject at hand or compells -him- to speak truthfully.

If a witness doesn't want to be confirmed by magic that would rise a lot of questions and reduce the value of what he says. But what I was talking about was still using magic to interrogate the defendant, if the situation is unclear, which generally happens when there are no witnesses or they are unreliable.
"Mr Rogue, given that the only witness is you friend and he refuse to submit to discern lies, you are going to confirm your version under the spell. Otherwise I will consider you guilty."

Also "having their mind forcibly opened up and pried" is quite an exaggeration, it doesn't do anyhting of the sort. The caster can't read the thoughts of the target.



Corruption is not a binary "is it or isn't it" thing when it comes to any system built around human(oid) interaction. Some people within the system will be corrupt, others won't. You build the system with this idea in mind so that the people who aren't corrupt can mitigate the deleterious effects of those that are corrupt. By the same token, people make mistakes so you also put in some degree of redundancy to mitigate that fact.

If you fear the judge can be corrupt what's your solution ? It seems to me that is to have more judges.
So the simple solution here is to have more casters.


Permanent effect. It's subject to dispelling. It's not the only way to screw with someone's memory though.

The others being ?



Effortlessly. Town drunk happens to be found on the scene of a murder because he was blacked out in the same alley. The victim is his drinking buddy that everyone in the bar saw him fighting with the night before. He has no recollection of the last 10 hours but, having been a conscript in the last war, he's killed people before. Before he's ever questioned by any official, the whispers of onlookers and the demons of his past convince him he did it, that he killed his friend in a drunken frenzy while he was blacked out. When the judge asks him, "Did you kill him?" he says "yes" because he "knows" the magic the courts use prevents and points out lies. There's no reason for anyone to be overmuch worried about a bum knifing so the investigation of the scene is cursory and nothing to suggest any other course of events is found.

In fact, the drinking buddy was actually a spy from a neighboring nation and was assassinated because he got made but this, being a matter of national security, never reaches the ears of anyone who doesn't need to know, including any investigators or the judge.

The drunk is hanged for a murder that he didn't commit.


Without the compulsive magic, maybe a few more questions get asked about how and why he killed his friend but "he said he did it and the judge's magic said it was the truth" so they wrapped it up and moved on.

If he confess to have killed his friend while drunk the obvious thought would be that it's not strange that he doesn't remember exactly how he did it.
The guy would be condemned with any system. Seriously what would be your defense line ? "He obviously didn't do it because he doesn't remember how he did it ? Yes, he was drunk, admitted the fact, had reason to do it and there are no other suspects, but those are details..."


You're missing the point. Sure, the factual truth of matters can be reached if you dig and build up a case. The point was that truth seeking magic can be decieved without telling deliberate lies. Truth spinning is a well known thing.

Well, it doesn't seem to be the case here, or can you explain how the rogue is going to spin the truth with the questions that I provided (the second one is supposed to be two different questions with the difference signaled by the /). And notice that a real trial would involve dozens or hundreds of very specific questions.

I also have to notice that the case in the OP would actually be solved easily, while the one with the drunken guy falsely accused would end with a giulty verdict under any system.
So on 3 cases we have 2 that can be solved with magic, while one can't be solved either way. I must say that the obvious flaws of the system are not so obvious.

[Andor13]

This thread led me to a thought. The assumed thought that the penalty for a crime is jail.

Why are jails a thing in D&D worlds? They are either trivially easy to get out of for mid-level characters, or must cost so much to construct that one wonders how they could be worth the investment. Furthermore they are an obvious hazard to the city, a large group of people trapped in a small chambers, usually in darkness, and unarmed? It's the ideal growth medium for self-replicating undead. A single Ghoul or Shadow gets into the Bastille and Paris falls by the next day. They are also a tempting target for any number of races or beings from Vampires to Mind Flayers to Drow Slavers. And countering these external threats as well as the internal ones would make jails expensive to operate.

There are probably societies where some of these traits are mitigated or even desirable, but in general most D&D societies would (IMHO) find jails to be a poor solution. Holding cells while awaiting trial? Sure. A drunk tank? Sure. Dungeons? Sure. But mass incarceration is a poor choice I think.

So what do they do with criminals instead?
Exile
Banishment
Slavery
Corporal Punishment
Fines
Branding/Magical Marking
Geas
Work Gangs
Curse/Hex
Banish to another plane
Polymorph Other
Execution
Feed to the Monster
Execute/Raise
Execute/Raise/Execute/etc...
Execute/Turned to mindless undead
Conscription
Heal (Cures all mental problems)

I mean, in a D&D world you could torture someone to death, make them pay for their own raise dead, and then say "Don't do it again." But the only thing they could come up with was jail?

[Segev]

Reading the narrative as presented by the original poster, and what the DM says was really happening...I feel really bad for the murder victim, and honestly think the rogue probably deserves jail.

If I think that, it's a pretty sure bet that an NPC jury will, too.

He's probably wisest for getting away while he can.


I mean, yow. Murdered for putting on makeup because the client was so paranoid he thought you were about to poison him. Poor girl.

[AnimeTheCat]

In most settings where magic is commonplace, being one on one, vulnerable, and surprised by who you thought was a simple prostitute seems suspicious. Seeing a person not only casting a spell but actively trying to HIDE the casting of that spell should cause any adventurer to question their safety. Magic is powerful, how is a rogue (likely with no spellcraft ranks) supposed to know the spell that is being cast (attempted in secrecy) isn't harmful? I'm not saying killing the girl was right, but a defensive reaction was wholesomely warranted.

[Segev]

In most settings where magic is commonplace, being one on one, vulnerable, and surprised by who you thought was a simple prostitute seems suspicious. Seeing a person not only casting a spell but actively trying to HIDE the casting of that spell should cause any adventurer to question their safety. Magic is powerful, how is a rogue (likely with no spellcraft ranks) supposed to know the spell that is being cast (attempted in secrecy) isn't harmful? I'm not saying killing the girl was right, but a defensive reaction was wholesomely warranted.
Defensive? Yes. Potentially murderous? No.

"But, your Honor, how was I supposed to know she was reaching into her purse to pull out a compact rather than a gun? I'm a soldier; I had no reason to suspect she was anything but a low-class prostitute! Way too low-class to adjust her makeup!"

[cigaw]

I freely admit to only reading the first page, so please ignore me if this has been brought up before.

I'm away from books and work blocks the SRD, so I'm going off of memory here. Please bear with me.

OP said the sorceress was trying to refresh a Disguise Self, meaning she was under the effects of one (extended, at that). Wouldn't the current spell expire after her death - or soon thereafter if it was due a refresh?

Even in a largish city, she wouldn't be unknown, especially if instead of freelancing she worked in a particular establishment - which seems to be the case. Her manager would know who went up to the room with the Rogue and would notice the corpse was a different person. Anyone who saw the corpse could conceivably know it to be a different person.

The way I see it, this can throw a wrench in the proceedings in favor of the Rogue - provided he spins this properly.

[Deophaun]

Her manager would know who went up to the room with the Rogue and would notice the corpse was a different person. Anyone who saw the corpse could conceivably know it to be a different person.
There is no requirement for disguise self to make you appear as a completely different person. According to the OP, this was used as magical makeup, not necessarily identity concealment.

[cigaw]

There is no requirement for disguise self to make you appear as a completely different person. According to the OP, this was used as magical makeup, not necessarily identity concealment.
He also said she used it to appear younger. If it's only one or two years, sure it'll be largely unnoticeable. I'm sure people will realize if she drops 20 years, though.

Regardless, this is just another possible avenue to pursue. She was under a magical effect that expired after death. Lingering auras are also a thing.

[Deophaun]

He also said she used it to appear younger.
Which is 90% of what normal makeup is for.

As for lingering auras, that will just prove she was under the effects of disguise self if you have anyone with a good Spellcraft check available, or a general illusion if it's only decent. That's not life threatening. And if magic is ubiquitous enough that a prostitute is using it, cosmetic illusions are likely not uncommon. Heck, my illusion-capable characters almost always use glamers to accentuate their dress at formal gatherings, making a rose pattern dynamically bloom, animating the bas relief of a dragon slaying on armor, or clothing themselves in a sunset. This should be the most commonly and blatantly encountered magic in the 3.5 setting after lighting, not justification for summary execution.

[cigaw]

Which is 90% of what normal makeup is for.

As for lingering auras, that will just prove she was under the effects of disguise self if you have anyone with a good Spellcraft check available, or a general illusion if it's only decent. That's not life threatening. And if magic is ubiquitous enough that a prostitute is using it, cosmetic illusions are likely not uncommon. Heck, my illusion-capable characters almost always use glamers to accentuate their dress at formal gatherings, making a rose pattern dynamically bloom, animating the bas relief of a dragon slaying on armor, or clothing themselves in a sunset. This should be the most commonly and blatantly encountered magic in the 3.5 setting after lighting, not justification for summary execution.
I really don't think equating Disguise Self with mundane makeup is a fair comparison. Even if you're only using it to appear like a younger and prettier version of yourself, once you die *pop* there goes your mascara and you're 20 years older and uglier. Again, I don't know how noticeable that change'd be in this particular instance as I'm not playing at that table.

A lingering aura, especially one that points to an illusion spell applied to oneself, will point toward deception.What yours, mine, or anyone else's characters do - save for the ones involved in this game - is not particularly relevant and there's a difference between an obvious glamour effect in a formal gathering and underhanded casting in an enclosed space with a naked and unarmed Rogue.

As far as how commonplace illusion magic is, the OP is the only one who can weigh in on how it's handled on that table.

[Deophaun]

Even if you're only using it to appear like a younger and prettier version of yourself, once you die *pop* there goes your mascara and you're 20 years older and uglier.
Citation needed. Shapechangers frequently revert to their original forms, but I know of no general rule that states magic is dispelled once the caster is slain.


A lingering aura, especially one that points to an illusion spell applied to oneself, will point toward deception.
Again, that's what makeup is. "Your Honor, the witness is clearly hiding her crow's feet. If she deceives in her appearance, how can we trust her testimony!"


What yours, mine, or anyone else's characters do - save for the ones involved in this game - is not particularly relevant and there's a difference between an obvious glamour effect in a formal gathering and underhanded casting in an enclosed space with a naked and unarmed Rogue.
It makes quite the difference. If illusions are often used for cosmetic reasons (which they should be if illusion magic is common), then "she was using an illusion" isn't any sort of defense.


As far as how commonplace illusion magic is, the OP is the only one who can weigh in on how it's handled on that table.
I'll repeat: it's common enough to be used by a prostitute.

[cigaw]

Citation needed. Shapechangers frequently revert to their original forms, but I know of no general rule that states magic is dispelled once the caster is slain.
For this bit, I refer you to this bit:


I'm away from books and work blocks the SRD, so I'm going off of memory here. Please bear with me.
So I may very well be wrong here, especially since it's not a Concentration spell. The point is moot, as the Disguise Self she was under was going to expire soon and someone may have noticed. Up to the DM and players.

For everything else, what you state as obvious is just a bunch of assumptions that certainly make sense to me but are not confirmed by the OP. You also seem to be under the impression that I'm suggesting the party use this as a smoking gun to overthrow the case while I've simply presented a possible avenue for inquiry. That little blurb about hiding the crow's feet as an argument to question the victim's character was amusing in a disingenuous kind of way.

In any case, I really don't have a stake in this and I see no point in dying on this hill.

[Deophaun]

For everything else, what you state as obvious is just a bunch of assumptions that certainly make sense to me but are not confirmed by the OP.
I want to show you two quotes. The first:

Even in a largish city, she wouldn't be unknown, especially if instead of freelancing she worked in a particular establishment - which seems to be the case. Her manager would know who went up to the room with the Rogue and would notice the corpse was a different person. Anyone who saw the corpse could conceivably know it to be a different person.
The second.

There is no requirement for disguise self to make you appear as a completely different person. According to the OP, this was used as magical makeup, not necessarily identity concealment.
Do you notice the difference? The first one is stated with certainty. The manager would know that's not the woman the Rogue was supposed to be with. The second points out the uncertainty: "not necessarily identity concealment." Didn't even flat out say that she wasn't using it to conceal her identity.

I'm not the one who made assumptions. And all the things that I "state as obvious" are prefaced with "if."

Now, you're hinging a lot on her being twenty years older but, unless the rogue is one of those kind of people, she's likely not because the reasons given for her not adventuring don't have to do with arthritis.

She's also probably not hiding her identity because

but she kept at it because she certainly doesn't want to risk adventuring or crime when her best combat spell is Charm Person, and she lacks the training and skills (like Diplomacy or Knowledge skills) to become a courtesan (or get any other job really - there's a stigma to her job that makes it hard to get another one that doesn't pay like **** and/or that isn't vastly harder work than what she's doing now).
What would the stigma matter if she used illusions to hide her identity?

Yeah, the OP doesn't specifically come out and confirm it, but there are a lot of details that say what's likely and what's not.

[Zanos]

"But, your Honor, how was I supposed to know she was reaching into her purse to pull out a compact rather than a gun? I'm a soldier; I had no reason to suspect she was anything but a low-class prostitute! Way too low-class to adjust her makeup!"
While I respect your opinion, it's pretty fallacious to suggest that a random spell is as potentially dangerous as someone reaching into their purse. Magic is inherently dangerous; purses are not.

[cigaw]

words
:smallsmile:

I brought up the 20-years-older/younger thing as an example of the difference when the spell expires being obvious; anything else is DM and table dependent. The whole scenario, including commonality of spells and spell schools is based on DM fiat, despite that fact that a prostitute managed to get to level 6 as a caster.

Anyway, I can cherry-pick quotes and pick apart sentences to support my statements as well. But frankly there's no point. Neither of us is gaining anything from this. Actually, no, I stand corrected that spells don't end with the caster's death; that really seems to not be the case.

In the end, if the OP finds this info useful, great; if not, great.

[King of Nowhere]

I'll repeat: it's common enough to be used by a prostitute.

while most people here are dismissive of the idea that someone with 5 caster levels may resort to menial jobs, it's not at all unrealistic. people stick with what they're familiar, and a lot of people will take an easy career over a difficult one, or will make one or two attempts at pursuuing a high-end career and then settle down for something less.
this girl started out as prostitute. she developed magical powers afterwards, but then
- she had limited spell selection, and those spells didn't have much market; except in the crime business, and she didn't want that
- she was familiar with the job of prostitute; it required zero effort from her to keep that job, while switching profession would requuire much more
- she liked the job; for her it involved less effort and better pay than other jobs she may have taken
- she wouldn't even know how to start finding the kind of (non-criminal) clients that would buy her magic, set up a shop or anything

So, it makes perfect sense that she kept being a prostitute. I know several people who got a PhD and then went on to do menial jobs, for similar reasons

[AnimeTheCat]

Defensive? Yes. Potentially murderous? No.

"But, your Honor, how was I supposed to know she was reaching into her purse to pull out a compact rather than a gun? I'm a soldier; I had no reason to suspect she was anything but a low-class prostitute! Way too low-class to adjust her makeup!"

The character has approximately 6 seconds to sense the incoming stimulus, decide on an action, and act. Indecision could easily means the difference between life and death or enslavement and freedom. If I were in that character's shoes and I saw an individual that I believed to be a mundane prostitute begin discretely casting a spell specifically with the intent to hide said casting from me, I would almost certainly have acted the same way. You can't defend yourself if you are dead or otherwise incapacitated. A mid level rogue would be no stranger to how dangerous magic can be and what would happen in the even of an underestimation of the spell being cast. To that end, while the escalation of force was extreme for the spell being cast, the outcome was likely the desired one, as the only way to stop a spellcaster mid-spell is death or silence (because concentration DCs are a joke).

A sorcerer casting a spell discretely is like someone pulling out a gun shaped object. It could be a lighter, or it could be death. You have less than 6 seconds to decide your action. The rogues reaction, while undesirable, is reasonable based on the circumstances provided in the OP.

Societies don't base reactions according to the lowest threat possible, rather the highest threat possible.

[rigsmal]

While I respect your opinion, it's pretty fallacious to suggest that a random spell is as potentially dangerous as someone reaching into their purse. Magic is inherently dangerous; purses are not.

Guns are so freakin' dangerous. The reason why shooting arms or legs doesn't work like it does in movies is, 1) it's way too hard, and 2) it has a good chance of killing the subject anyways.

Well anyways, my point is that purses can carry something that will just end you, instantly. Much like magic!

If I was standing next to the President, I wouldn't just try to pull something out of a purse. That would get me dropped instantly, and for good reason. Your prior point about guards taking out a spellcaster near a VIP is well-taken.

Nor would I, I suspect, try to draw something from a purse standing next to a drug cartel enforcer or death squad officer, probably the closest IRL equivalents to a murderhobo.

That said, if I got murdered for opening my purse after a 'liaison' with a 'client', I'd hope the police wouldn't consider opening my purse a reasonable cause for violence. Similarly, if I cast a spell far away from a VIP, in a domestic scenario in which many domestic spells exist, it seems more than reasonable that I have reasonable expectation not to get whacked.

[Segev]

Instantly lethal response is also overkill for preventing the casting of a spell. There are grapple checks (which admittedly a rogue isn't great at, but neither is a wizard), and even nonlethal or non-sneak-attack damage can break concentration. There's also breaking line of effect, though that can be harder.

"But, officer, I thought for sure her lighter was a real gun, and that she was about to murder me, so I immediately resorted to stuffing a grenade down her throat!" is not likely to fly, either. And a rogue going full sneak attack is probably MORE damaging than a grenade in D&D. :P

[Caedes]

Oh, this is interesting.

Before diving into the primary discussion. Advice for the OP.

If the Rogue is flushed with Cash. Hire your own "Billy Flynn" style Lawyer/barrister. If said Rogue is not flush with cash and has to defend himself. Time to run away man! Stealth yo'self right out of town!


Now as to what happened. As a spellcaster and casting a spell being related to that of a gun. In the D&D world, a Spellcaster is a gun. They are their own weapon. And I say this as a person that has dedicated many hours to perfecting the art of the fireball. And when a spellcaster starts to cast a spell. It is not them brandishing the gun as if to potentially carve an apple, it is them cocking the hammer of the gun back.

And a PC, in general, is a walking Murderhobo that spends the majority of their time being hunted or monsters or BBEGs trying to kill them, dominate them etc. etc. etc. etc.

Now let's take the typical martial Murderhobo and put them in the room with a Prostitute that is actually a Spellcaster (walking and talking concealed gun). And said Concealed gun / Spellcaster ***** back the hammer. Then I say the Murderhobo will do what the murderhobo has been trained to do. And that is defend themself from whatever the BBEG, Monster, villian or in this case a loaded gun /spellcaster being pointed at them and the hammer being cocked back.


Now you could utilize all the past experiences of how their have been countless threats to the rogues life in their long history of murderhobodem, and have your "Billy Flynn" style lawyer/barrister take it from there. I mean after all. This comes down to the simple question of who reached for the gun first. And I would argue the Walking Gun did just that when she started casting an unknown spell.

[Nifft]

Instantly lethal response is also overkill for preventing the casting of a spell.

Devil's Advocate: I guess it could be argued that the dagger was intended to disrupt the spellcaster's concentration, and that the death of the caster was an unintended accident.

Alternately, given the inflated HP totals of D&D threats, it's not necessarily true that a single thrown dagger would qualify as "instantly lethal" -- so it could be argued that damaging the caster was intended to disrupt the spell, and the caster's death was accidental.

Also, a grapple check couldn't be made from many distances at which a dagger would be thrown, so that's probably not a viable alternative in this scenario. There could be other reasons why a grapple check wasn't viable -- perhaps there was difficult terrain between the PC and the spellcaster, for example a pile of discarded clothing and an overturned chair.

[Andor13]

There is so much GM fiat here.

First, Caedes is right, a 6th level Rogue is a professional killer with lots of justified professional paranoia. I remember an army Ranger who was in Viet Nam telling em that in the field they would wake each other up by tossing a pebble from about 10' away. Shaking someone awake was a great way to get knifed. An experienced prostitute should have been able to sense this is a dangerous man, and been more careful.

There is a large matter of social protocols here. I would expect there to be either a social or legal requirement for spell casters to warn others when they are casting, and preferably to announce what they are casting.

Imagine if all technology looked that same: a car, a gun, a phone, a comb, an oven, a blender, a flashlight, a lipstick, an airliner, a nuke, an air conditioner. Imagine if they all looked like a 2" black cube with a red button on it, and you had no way to know if someone was going to bake a pie or destroy a city when the button was pushed without a great deal of professional skill. That is what spell casting looks like.

So, I think the Prostitute/Wizard was stupid for doing what she did, she could have just gone to "powder her nose" and cast her spell out of sight.

This may or may not count as a mitigating circumstance for the rogue however. It depends on a fictional legal system of a fictional society. Sooo much GM fiat.

[Quertus]

"Spells" are not weapons, any more than "technology" is. Would you accept if some backwater savage murdered your friend or family member just because they pulled out technology unexpectedly?

That having been said, the sorceress was an idiot for casting - and attempting to conceal their casting - in the presence of her John. Someone with her level of experience should have known better than to cast in front of the extremely deadly paranoid rogue - or, on the off chance that he somehow doesn't come off as a twitch away from murder, in front of any of her johns.

The GM, therefore, was at fault for role-playing her poorly because he wanted to tell a particular story. He wanted the girl to become a contact for the party. His desires led to him role-playing the sorceress poorly, which led to the current dilemma.

But all that is irrelevant. It's how we got here. We're here. Now what?

Well, where are we? The rogue is a foreigner in an unknown city with an unknown legal system, accused of a murder he did, in fact, commit. He was found on the scene, attempted escape, failed, and was arrested and imprisoned. Sound right?

The smart thing for the rogue to do is to open his bloody mouth and ask questions of the locals. Find out, from those who live in the town - from the guards, his fellow prisoners, whoever he can talk to - everything he can about the local laws / legal system. Make an informed decision.

I'll tackle "what could the rogue have done" and "is Detect Lies a good idea" in another post.

Oh, but one more thing:


Magic -can- be used to detect lies but not substantially more reliably than non-magical methods. Well, except the one but I doubt the court in question has access to a mind flayer and a thought extruder. If they do, RUN.

I ran a module in which the party - in clear opposition to the intent of the module - submitted themselves to the proper authorities. Said authorities, well, the city was run by an Illithid*, who verified their stories by eating the party's brains. Since they were innocent, he had them resurrected (seriously, what kind of lawful society punishes the innocent? Ok, so they also had connections, which would make just disappearing them suboptimal). Point is, yes, I agree, that makes for a very nearly perfect legal system.

* that's another word for mind flayer, on the off chance anyone reading this doesn't know

[Zanos]

Guns are so freakin' dangerous. The reason why shooting arms or legs doesn't work like it does in movies is, 1) it's way too hard, and 2) it has a good chance of killing the subject anyways.
Not really relevant, I don't think anyone's arguing that guns aren't for killing people. Just the opposite, in fact.


Well anyways, my point is that purses can carry something that will just end you, instantly. Much like magic!
The ratio of things that purses carry that are for hurting people's bodies or minds is not quite the same ratio as spells that are for hurting people's bodies or minds. I like the knife analogy better. A purse is a "black box", a knife is either a tool or a weapon, and in the context it was pulled out in the OP it looks very much like a weapon.



If I was standing next to the President, I wouldn't just try to pull something out of a purse. That would get me dropped instantly, and for good reason. Your prior point about guards taking out a spellcaster near a VIP is well-taken.

Nor would I, I suspect, try to draw something from a purse standing next to a drug cartel enforcer or death squad officer, probably the closest IRL equivalents to a murderhobo.

That said, if I got murdered for opening my purse after a 'liaison' with a 'client', I'd hope the police wouldn't consider opening my purse a reasonable cause for violence. Similarly, if I cast a spell far away from a VIP, in a domestic scenario in which many domestic spells exist, it seems more than reasonable that I have reasonable expectation not to get whacked.
I consider myself to be a VIP to myself. I don't think OP has clarified whether or not level 6 sorcerer prostitutes are common in this setting, but the writeup as a full character suggests to me that it is actually uncommon. And prostitutes aren't exactly known to be saints in most settings or real life; robbing a "John" or setting him up are fairly common. Not exactly a domestic situation when two near strangers have a brief tryst and one of them secretly goes rummaging for a potential weapon while the other has their back turned.

Kind of "meta" logic, and maybe just my experience with DMs, but I generally avoid the world's oldest profession; DMs can't seem to resist taking advantage of an opportunity where your characters guard might be down.


Instantly lethal response is also overkill for preventing the casting of a spell. There are grapple checks (which admittedly a rogue isn't great at, but neither is a wizard), and even nonlethal or non-sneak-attack damage can break concentration. There's also breaking line of effect, though that can be harder.
Not really; a spell caster can have anywhere from 4 to 400hp.


"But, officer, I thought for sure her lighter was a real gun, and that she was about to murder me, so I immediately resorted to stuffing a grenade down her throat!" is not likely to fly, either. And a rogue going full sneak attack is probably MORE damaging than a grenade in D&D. :P
I'll point out that people have gotten off on self-defense for being in precarious situations and perceiving the existence of a weapon. Not that it's particularly relevant, considering we know the weapon exists, it's just a matter of it being loaded with blanks.

[Quertus]

So, some other questions to answer.

"what could the rogue have done"

So, the scenario is, a sorceress was casting an unknown spell in the presence of her John, the presumably naked 6th level rogue. The Rogue knows nothing of magic, and has no clue if his life or mind might be threatened. What could the rogue have done?

The rogue could have murdered the **** out of the sorceress (pun intended). Which he did.

The rogue could have attempted subdual damage. Which, had this been an attack, would have reduced his chances of survival by 20%. That's not really a valid solution.

The rogue could have, uh, not aimed for such vital locations. Maybe. "I feel threatened enough to stab you, but not enough to really stab you" just seems kinda odd to me. Also, while valid in 2e and earlier, this tactic is completely useless in 3e at preventing spell casting.

The rogue could have attempted a grapple.

The rogue could have blocked LoS - hidden behind the bed, lept out a window, etc.

Note, that the previous two answers involve the rogue having some knowledge how magic works. He had no Spellcraft, so these are not valid solutions, even ignoring their potential inefficiency.

He could have run away. Naked. In public. And without his gear. He could have been arrested for public nudity and failed at D&D.

He could have screamed for help. While not terribly heroic, it might have worked... were he not in a big city... in a place of her choosing... where people might cry for release all the time.

So, I'm having a hard time saying that he took the "wrong" action here.

"is Detect Lies a good idea?"

If the burden of proof is on the defendant, then there are likely individuals he can hire, at his own expense, to clear his name. Of course, this solution is rife with potential for corruption.

"So, you say that you know nothing about magic? Ok, I'll cast Detect Lies on you at your trial, and let the court know that you're telling the truth. Let's practice now." And the rogue was never heard from again.

How good of a plan is it for the State to utilize such technology?

Let's ignore issues of rarity - a single caster can power the entire country with enough Rings of Spell Storing and Pearls of Power.

So, for any important trial (a PC Rogue likely has enough money for this to qualify, even if murder of a prostitute (which the accused had admitted to?) doesn't), some number of judges all cast Detect Lies on the subject. They all know if he resisted, they all know if he is answering truthfully, they all can use their wisdom to ask whatever questions they deem fit to ask, on top of giving the accused the opportunity to provide "free form" defense (ie, say whether they want in their own defense).

In the rare event of someone who is immune to the spell, doesn't want the spell / isn't forced to submit to the spell, the state could escalate the case, and attempt to gather information with divination. Or could simply treat it as a normal case, and use witnesses and questioning and sense motive, or whatever other non-magical techniques are commonly employed.

[Segev]

Since they were innocent, he had them resurrected

Wow, that's an expensive interrogation.

[Quertus]

Wow, that's an expensive interrogation.

It was less expensive than a potential war with a neighboring country. Since the party* was innocent of any major wrong doing, it was an expensive intelligence operation, disguised as a peace offering.

* well, the ones he "interrogated", at any rate

[Jack_Simth]

It was less expensive than a potential war with a neighboring country. Since the party* was innocent of any major wrong doing, it was an expensive intelligence operation, disguised as a peace offering.

* well, the ones he "interrogated", at any rate
Also probably a nice lunch. Well, for one person, anyway.

[Acanous]

But can we get a city name? It’ll help a lot

[Mordaedil]

You guys are going about this the wrong way. He's ****ed with regards to the prostitute. His only hope of escape is to pin the blame on someone else.

Your rogue probably has a lot of gold on him. Tell the jury it was all payment from an upstanding noble to hire you to assissinate the prostitute.

Bluff, bluff, bluff all the damn day long. They aren't going to bother using magic to tell if you speak the truth because everything you say will just sound just right as it makes sense to them and you will possibly even succeed in getting yourself off the hook.

Hope you are proud of yourself, murderer.

[Alberic Strein]

In our modern world, that rogue would be toast. He could, maybe, wiggle his way to a manslaughter charge, from a murder charge, but I really don't think any judge would retain the self defence claim.

With that being said, the rogue may try his hand at a couple of things here, depending on his last adventures. I do believe he could claim professional tic. In the last weeks of adventuring, he met a number of spellcasters. All these spellcasters used their skills with magic for only one thing: Trying to kill him or analogous nefarious purposes. There was no visible reason for the prostitute to start casting a spell, she gave no warning whatsoever and tried to conceal her actions. From that point on, from someone whose twenty five last interactions with spellcasters ended with murder attempts, you could infer reasonable doubt that the woman may have very well been trying to attack him. As for the possible danger the rogue felt he was in, he could not know the strength of a spell, but knows that he would be unable to defend efficiently against some spells, and those same spells could very well kill him in one go, or steal his mind away. From someone whose long string of experiences acclimated him with only those spells, and someone whose survival mantra is "kill the mage first", and maybe failed a fortitude or will save and ended up in deep ****, like falling under a vampire's gaze, then his unfortunate reaction makes sense as someone merely trying to save his life. His weapons were away from him when she started casting, he only struck her once and did not desecrate her body with a double tap.

Hence, this is an unfortunate accident born of miscommunication. Can one really be found guilty of trying to protect his life? My client is ready to be fined for his actions, and to amend for the hurt he unwillingly caused, but any sentence of prison or worse would not, in the eyes of the defense, accurately represent the actions of this unfortunate evening.

At least that's how I'd plead it. The rogue would not get away scotfree, but that's better than being hanged.

[Segev]

If he has enough gold, he might be able to get the sentence reduced to a fine or a little bit of community service (i.e. a quest he has to go on, which the party can come along) if he can pay to have her resurrected.

[Rijan_Sai]

If he has enough gold, he might be able to get the sentence reduced to a fine or a little bit of community service (i.e. a quest he has to go on, which the party can come along) if he can pay to have her resurrected.

And once again, we see that "Raise Dead" is the D&D equivalent of "My bad!" :smallbiggrin:

At this point, I would say you (OP) should have enough to go on: get information about local laws/stigmas/etc.; prepare a well-worded defense (see Alberic Strein's last post for some really good ideas); offer Raise Dead/Resurrection at [the rogue's] own expense; also, if you go that route, make sure you get a cleric with an alignment that the prostitute is likely to trust (remember that the soul knows some information about the caster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#bringingBacktheDead)*) I would probably recommend one of Chaotic Good... Lawful Good might not work as planned, depending on local laws regarding her profession...


A soul cannot be returned to life if it does not wish to be. A soul knows the name, alignment, and patron deity (if any) of the character attempting to revive it and may refuse to return on that basis.

...um... If I had anywhere else I was going with this, I lost that train of thought many minutes ago...

[Necroticplague]

In our modern world, that rogue would be toast. He could, maybe, wiggle his way to a manslaughter charge, from a murder charge, but I really don't think any judge would retain the self defence claim.

I don’t think manslaughter makes sense. He definitely intended to hurt her with lethal force, which is assault with a deadly weapon. That she died during that makes it felony murder. At best, jurisdiction depending, that’s third degree murder.

[Zanos]

I don’t think manslaughter makes sense. He definitely intended to hurt her with lethal force, which is assault with a deadly weapon. That she died during that makes it felony murder. At best, jurisdiction depending, that’s third degree murder.
It's hard to make a modern comparison. Nobody except her actually knows what spell she was casting.

[Nifft]

And once again, we see that "Raise Dead" is the D&D equivalent of "My bad!" :smallbiggrin: Given the dangerously preponderance of accident-risking area damage effects found on the Arcane side of the spell list, one would expect some equivalent Arcane "My bad!" spell.

Here are my initial thoughts on candidate spells:

- Mordenkeinen's Mishap Mitigation.

- Rary's Reluctant Restitution.

- Boccob's Blessed Back-Take.

[Alberic Strein]

It's hard to make a modern comparison. Nobody except her actually knows what spell she was casting.
I just realized that all this could have been avoided with a good sense motive check. Unless I'm wrong that should be enough to determine if the mage that just started casting stealthily in front of you has nefarious purposes or not.

By the way, it would be great if OP came with an update on the situation, so we know how it all ended.

[CMagnum]

With the prostitute being killed she would revert back to her natural look right? Could you use this fact in some way to plead your case? Seeing as she must look significantly different without her magic compared to how she has appeared to many people recently should help in some regard in my opinion. Even if it doesn't get you off scott free, there are implications which could factor into a less harsh sentencing surely.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

This was a very interesting thread! Thanks to all those who answered!
I will remember many of those ideas for next time I GM a game.

Here's what happened in my current game though (where I'm a player): the jailed character decided to try to escape, but died in the attempt!
How did this even happen? Well it turns out that without weapons or gear he was still pretty squishy, even at lv8. He did manage to get out of the cell and to kill a guard (guards are level 3 warriors) and take his dagger (he was untrained in halberd use), but the guard had had time to shout. The first reinforcements managed to land a *3 crit for some pretty huge damage, so the character decided that fighting without gear or allies against people with reach weapons and willing to kill him (probably for killing their fellow guard) was too risky. So he decided to flee.
He actually managed to Tumble through them and to get to a window, but he then badly failed a climb check and fell 40ft and lost his last few hit points.
Yeah, I too expected jail cells to be underground and not on the 3rf floor of a stone building.

I think that this entire situation was dumb as hell, but I find myself blaming the player more than the GM.
Hopefully he will be less inclined to kill everything he meets with his next character. [I'm suggesting that he play a Beguiler].
And I liked the idea of introducing a potential contact by having us notice her fail at hiding her spellcasting, and the fact that prison guards attack to kill if you harm one of them but otherwise focus on subdual damage.

So anyway, the entire trial scene was avoided by the death of the accused. What a shame. Well, it might happen anyway if we raise him, but we haven't even found the body yet...
And I'm guessing even odds he starts a new character.

[Zanos]

Would have been nice to know how it played out. Sounds like a pretty botched escape attempt.

I too wouldn't have expected jail cells to be on the 3rd floor...

[TalonOfAnathrax]

I just asked the GM what he had planned for the trial. He said that the penalty for murder was death, but that the character could probably have gotten the sentence reduced easily enough.
He could have hired expensive lawyers (or rolled good Knowledge and social skills checks) and have them argue along the lines of "what could his motive possibly be?" and "look, he's repentant and willing to pay to Raise her and then compensate her and her loved ones". He could have called for a spellcaster to use some Divination to back up his claims, or hired a private investigator to try to find evidence that she was a spellcaster and maybe even that she had cast a spell. Doing either of these things would have delayed the trial by days/weeks, and given him the opportunity to send a message to us begging for help.
Final verdict depending on how well he handled things would have been...amnesty! But the next day the character would have been discreetly brought to the palace of some important NPC instead of freed, and told that this amnesty would stand only if he accepted to do some deniable dirty work.
So basically this would have been a legal drama and caused a large loss of money, and then turned into a quest hook for the party.

The court itself would have been reasonable enough, but if he were rude then the judge would stop holding back and turn out to be racist (against the character's race).
The people attacking him would be the dead prostitute's family, friends and coworkers (who would come and cry in court, basically - very moving but that's about it) and the prostitute's employer, who's richer and aiming to turn this into a way to be seen in a better light by his employees but also sees this as a way to get a lot of monetary compensation. He doesn't even think of asking for her to be Raised though, and offering that would have thrown him off his game.

[ericgrau]

Doesn't killing with questionable justification but no malice fall under voluntary manslaughter? Less severe than murder, but still illegal. That would be the charge or some local law equivalent if the town determines that the rogue jumped the gun and went overboard on self defense. If they determine it was a perfectly reasonable response and not an over-response OTOH then there is no charge.


"look, he's repentant and willing to pay to Raise her and then compensate her and her loved ones".
That's a reasonable D&D penalty for manslaughter. Not even as something that the rogue comes up with, but a forced charge by the court given the wealth of the people involved.

[hamishspence]

Doesn't killing with questionable justification but no malice fall under voluntary manslaughter? Less severe than murder, but still illegal.

That's pretty much how Imperfect Self-defence works:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_self-defense

though not every jurisdiction has it.

for Justifiable Homicide - the defendant has to prove that the victim intended violence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

In D&D, using Speak with Dead, could actually get an answer as to what the last spell cast by the victim was intended to be - thus ruling out Justifiable Homicide (cosmetics was the reason for the spell) - but leaving Imperfect Self Defence -

"my belief that they were going to attack me was honest, even if unreasonable"

as an option.