D&D 5E Zone of truth 5e: Justice system revolution!

Yes it would have a huge effect at least on crime in the upper society where thks could be used, but it would also be fitting when a lord designates one day of the weak for speaking rights when a ZoT is made available and all accused have to speak before him.

And if they do not want to speak its back to torture. With ZoT you know if the information provided under torture are correct or not, making it a rather effective tool.

Sure the cleric might be corrupt, but such clerics tend to lose their spellcasting power rather fast and case where the cleric secretly worships a different deity and no one notices it would be rather rare. It also doesn't automatically mean that all judgments by the cleric will be false.
So compared to a regular justice system, especially medieveal ones, it ZoT would be much more effective.

[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]: The rich, the powerful, and the very clever will still get to defy the justice system yup... that won't change.

Delazar said:

Can you voluntarily fail saves in 5e? I was recently the target of such spell, and my interrogator stated something along the lines of "if you resist this spell, I will know that you are guilty". I was innocent anyhow, so I asked the DM if I could just not roll the save, and he agreed.

Click to expand...

I think that voluntarily failing a save is a logical ruling, and that continuous attempts to resist the spell would be seen as an indicator of guilt, also refusing to answer a question. I don't think the 5th amendment existed

jgsugden said:

We have lie detectors that are seemingly reliable in the real world. They are not allowed in court. For similar reasons, fantasy worlds will not be overrun with clerics in court.

Click to expand...

In the US, individual judges have discretion over whether or not to allow the results of polygraph tests as evidence in a trial. The decision on whether or not to do so is guided by the Daubert standards and other relevant case law. The reason polygraph-test results are often not allowed as evidence in trial is that they are not entirely reliable. They can be fooled.

That said, I find it unlikely that many governments in a D&D fantasy world will follow modern U.S. case law on the admissibility of evidence. Torture has been proven to lead to very unreliable evidence, which, along with it being being considered a violation of human rights, has led to torture being strictly curtailed in modern democracies. How many fantasy governments in the typical D&D campaign are modern democracies?

Even if Zone of Truth was not reliable, nearly any government in the typical D&D campaign that has access to it would use it. Just as most medieval governments used torture.

This is especially likely as, unlike polygraph tests and torture, Zone of Truth is extremely reliable. You KNOW when it works and when it fails.

The one issue I can see with ZOT, however, is that it is the CASTER who knows that it worked and knows whether the target is lying.

Therefore, the admissibility of the results of a Zone of Truth spell might depend on the availability of the caster to testify at trial where he would have to face the accused and be subject to cross examination. Of course, this presupposes that a fantasy judicial system would have a concept similar to "hearsay" as used in anglo-american law. They probably don't. But perhaps, for important trials, such as those involving nobels, there may be a requirement for more than one cleric, from different orders who cast ZOT, to help avoid someone bribing the caster.

Delazar said:

Can you voluntarily fail saves in 5e? I was recently the target of such spell, and my interrogator stated something along the lines of "if you resist this spell, I will know that you are guilty". I was innocent anyhow, so I asked the DM if I could just not roll the save, and he agreed.

Click to expand...

The spell states "must make a Charisma saving throw."

Other spells, like Polymorph, specify that "unwilling" creatures must make the saving throw.

So, using RAW, the target has to make a saving throw. It is purely academic, because the target can choose to the tell the truth. I suppose, sticking with RAW it could be funny to have someone willing to tell the truth, but make the saving throw and have to deal with the suspicion that raises.

In my game, despite RAW, I let players choose to fail the save. But, after thinking about it, I might make them roll. They will most likely make the save at their level. It will be fun trying to get people to believe them when they keep making their ZOT saves. <EVIL DM GRIN>

There's a lot of modern liberal jurisprudence leaking in here. Most 'courts' in history have not been very concerned with rules of evidence and proof. Most didn't afford significant rights to the accused. Evidence was loosely presented, and the judge made a decision, which was usually a fine of some kind. If you can't pay, it's the dungeons, where conditions were brutal and you likely didn't survive a long stay. Zone of Truth doesn't change this much, mostly because ZoT doesn't change the trust issues outside of the caster -- if the caster isn't well established in the community and a trusted person, they're evidence, from a spell or not, will not be weighed heavily. So adventuring party casters are likely not going to be trusted much to begin with. Community religious leaders might be, but, honestly, unless the religion has spheres that include justice, law, or other government leaning interests, they're probably not going to be assigning clerics to the court system to get a few 10 minute patches of mabye better truth out of the accused.

ZoT remains a useful spell to convince the players they're getting truthful information. Except in large cities with extensive access to appropriate clergy or high government (the ZoT for the King's throneroom is nice), it's not going to make a huge impact. Unless you're assuming a modern liberal justice system with professional staffing (full time judges, court staff, baliffs, lawyers, etc.) and adding professional clergy casters to the mix, in which case, have at, it's an interesting system to have a little bit of extra occasional truthfinding.

Your honor my client the Murderous Morris of Cabot Cove has sat here for the past 48 minutes while Judiciary Jessica Fletcher has at least 480 Zone of Truths. How long must we wait until she admits Murderous Morris did not kill Jasper in the boat house with a shepherd crook?
Judge Tom Tupper, “case dismiss!”
Jessica, “But I am sure I get right. Just after this commercial break.”

MNblockhead said:

In the US, individual judges have discretion over whether or not to allow the results of polygraph tests as evidence in a trial. The decision on whether or not to do so is guided by the Daubert standards and other relevant case law. The reason polygraph-test results are often not allowed as evidence in trial is that they are not entirely reliable. They can be fooled.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is nuance to the statement that they are inadmissible. In truth, the largest opposition to the use of it in court comes from the legal professionals where their earning potential would be impacted by the use of it. Who pays for the studies that challenges the efficacy of the device?

...Even if Zone of Truth was not reliable, nearly any government in the typical D&D campaign that has access to it would use it. Just as most medieval governments used torture...

Click to expand...

I think that is a broad statement and it misses a lot of nuance.

First, it assumes that a corrupt court/government wants truth. If you assume it results in reliable knowledge of truth, then it would limit their capability to extort and railroad.

Second, it assumes that the results would be trusted. Even if the cleric were beyond reproach, can the spell be beaten? There are spells and wizard abilities that can beat it by altering what a person believes. If an illusion of a person is in the aura, what happens if a decitful statement comes from that illusion? Well crafted statements can mislead while still being technically true. The spell explicitly allows that gap and we have a skill that makes it no more than a d20 roll away, even when a DM or player can't find the words themself. Few might have the resources to beat it, but some will.

Third, the organized criminal element might go to some lengths to keep it from being used...

Finally, what is or is not a lie is subjective. Who is the arbiter here? The speaker? The God? "Have you ever tried to cheat on your significant other?" Would it be a lie to say no if they flirted with someone else? Is it a lie if they kissed an ex? What if the ex got a bit handsy and the speaker stopped it... eventually. What if someone invited the speaker to a bedchamber and they went without really knowing what would happen, but they turned around and left when they reached the door? What if they got drunk and woke up in a strange bed with no memory of the night before? What if the speaker took an extra $200 from the bank in Monopoly while playing with their significant other? What if the speaker started a relationship with someone else and never told the significant other, but it took place between the first and second date with the now significant other? Heck, what is the view on solo adventures? I think you could get different answers from different judges on whether a "No" would be a lie in those various fact patterns. If the arbiter of the spell is not in alignment with the "judge", and that is known, what would that mean for the desire to allow the spell?

In the end, however, I think the question is actually whether the spell's use in a court makes for a good story. RPGs are role playing games, we play roles in stories, the game is good when the story is good. Does the spell make for a good story? Railroading PCs rarely results in fun for the players, so I'd think that it would be rare that the game would benefit for it to be used against them... although beating it can be fun once in a while.

Modifications of the 'lawyerly evasions' idea:

- "Your Honor, I don't want to talk about that."
- "I'm offended that you don't believe what I said in the first place."
- "Umm ... well, as I recall it ... hmmm ..." <continue for another 9 min 45 sec>
- Talk about previous interactions between you and the other fellow; "Stop interrupting me with all these other questions, counsel, I'm on a time limit!"
- Engage in a discourse to provide all necessary information (emphasis on 'all', not 'necessary') about the case.
- Claim to have an allergic reaction to magic, just before ZoT is cast.
- Challenge the caster and the counsel and the judge to a duel - they have besmirched your honor by implying you are a liar.
- Talk about probably-illegal stuff that was done to you as the Court prepared the case. "I was subjected to torture last night, threatening me that I must say lies to this Court."
- "I challenge the integrity and honesty of the plaintiff's counsel."
- Do a riff off Jim Carey's character in Liar Liar. (He is enspelled (behind his back) in the middle of a trial and discovers he cannot represent his client any more because "I CAN'T LIE !!!") Emphasize how you feel compelled to tell the truth ... but don't actually answer the questions asked.

The justice system will likely use ZoT much like the real world used fingerprints: it is a really good indicator, but it needs to be buttressed with some other information.

Derren said:

Sure the cleric might be corrupt, but such clerics tend to lose their spellcasting power rather fast and case where the cleric secretly worships a different deity and no one notices it would be rather rare. It also doesn't automatically mean that all judgments by the cleric will be false.
So compared to a regular justice system, especially medieveal ones, it ZoT would be much more effective.

Click to expand...

Depends on the setting and how you handle cleric powers. In Eberron, for example, the gods are not powerful beings that walk among mortals and interfere in world affairs. They are ephemeral ideas and concepts that may or may not exist. In such worlds/settings, it is very possible that a corrupt cleric that is acting in defiance of their religious order can maintain their powers. This can be explained by either the idea that cleric powers are not granted by their deity but rather their power of faith is strong enough to bend reality to their will. Alternatively, if the gods are present and aware, it may be that they allow corrupt clerics to operate with their powers because they ultimately serve some higher purpose, putting in place some small piece of the puzzle that will unfold and become manifest only centuries or even millennia after the death of that corrupt cleric.

I noticed it awhile ago. To me, the best use of this spell would not be for interrogations, it would be for negotiations.

I could easily see a setting in which any high-level diplomatic or political negotiation involves a stage at its conclusion in which both parties bind the treaty. At that stage, each side brings in two clerics, and all of them cast overlapping zones of truth. Once all clerics agree that the principals have failed all their saving throws, each one is asked a simple question - "Do you intend to abide by the terms of this agreement as laid out in the document before you?" - to which the answer must be a simple Yes or No. After each participant has affirmed their intent, the documents are signed - but that is merely a formality. The agreement is struck the moment the principals confirm their intent to be bound by it.