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

[Ancalagon]

Hello

During last session, one player noted that the changes in 5e to zone of truth are *profound* - the caster now knows if the target made his/her save or not. This makes the spell *waaaaay* better, but it's still a second level spell! Under the old versions, if you asked a question and the target answered, you weren't quite sure if the target was telling the truth or had made their saves and was fibbing. Now you *know*.

This seems to have massive societal implication. Unless you game in a world where clerical magic is extremely rare, just having a few clerics here and there with the spell available would completely change how a justice system would be run. No more guessing games! Heck it might even remove/lessen the "need" for torture as it's such a potent interrogation tool. It would be awfully useful in the counter-intelligence aspect of the spying business too, or political negotiations etc...

Having clerical magic in general can impact society, but there is always the question of "volume" - how many clerics are there? A single level 3 cleric in town can't heal everyone, or turn back an epidemic - sure she'll save a few, but not the whole town. Serious criminal cases are rare however, and that same cleric would be amply sufficient to assist the justice system (whatever form in may take) in ferreting out the truth.

Surely we aren't the first who have noticed this... comments?

 

[iserith]

I think it would be more appropriate to say that it "could" completely change the setting's justice system. There are probably many acceptable reasons why it might not. And for my part, I choose one of those.

As an aside, does anyone see much use of this spell in their games? I haven't seen it cast at all so far.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I must have missed the part where it tells you whether they succeed or fail. What I did notice is that you have to save every round, and a single failure binds you to the spell for the duration.

And yes, it is powerful in direct proportion to how common you make spellcasters. If you have spellcasters at every level of every government, as in the Forgotten Realms, then it means that trials are extremely short and straightforward. If someone wants to commit a serious crime and expect to get away with it, they'll have to have themselves false memory charmed - or have themselves obliviated of their own involvement - so that they can stand up to Zone of Truth.

Of course, unless Zone of Truth has some way to distinguish between true memories and false ones, you can never be entirely certain. I mean, some random farmer probably couldn't afford such an expensive service, but the grand vizier probably could.

 

[Eubani]

I'm my world the king has a perm zone of truth in front of his throne where people bow and answer to him. In circumstances like that it makes sense.

 

[jgsugden]

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.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

It is a powerful spell to be sure. However, there are still a great number of ways to avoid giving information while still telling the truth. A creature could refuse to speak, or just go on without spilling the beans (for a great example, watch the episode of Burn Notice called "Eye for an Eye").

Also, there is nothing stating that spells could not be developed that could fool this spell. Think about the Cold War or any arms race. If Zone of Truth becomes to problematic for people that are motivated enough to beat it, they could have something like a fake tooth that they'd break in the event of being victim to this spell. The tooth is enchanted with specific memories that are temporarily seeded into your own. As far as you know, you are telling the truth, and the spell would not necessarily be able to tell the difference.

Or a spell/item could be enchanted to plant a psychic reset button, temporarily (or perhaps even permanently) erasing all memories the person had from a given point in their life, like a neuralizer from MIB. Such a person would be truthful but would suddenly not have the information you need.

Also, how does the spell determine what is "truth." Is it based on how well the statements and information spoken align with the target's memories? Is it based on the confidence of the target that the information is right? If someone legitimately believes the earth is flat, and they are asked what shape is the earth while under this spell and respond flat, are they lying?

Then there are the inherent issues with privacy. People would know that anyone capable of casting that spell would have significant power and would want to limit it because it can just as easily be used on them. Think about today with Big Brother and the NSA. There would be strict sanctions on how such spells could be used, and even then there would likely be large groups of people that would sway public opinion to believe that the spell is not as accurate as to be a smoking gun all on it's own.

 

[cbwjm]

I can see priests of a god of judgement being the primary arbitrators of the criminal system in a setting, however, bear in mind that the caster knows if someone made their saving throw, that doesn't mean that they are lying, just that they are unaffected by the spell.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Also, think about our society today. We live in a world where despite overwhelming scientific evidence (science being our most powerful tool to understanding the fundamental truths of the universe) and yet people constantly refute such evidence. I won't go into further detail in fear of derailing the thread, but if such a thing is possible in the real world, it is absolutely likely in a fantasy world.

In fact, one potential argument would be because it is such a relatively easy spell to master on the spectrum of possible spells that it would be equally easy to fool given a higher mastery of magical talent.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hello

During last session, one player noted that the changes in 5e to zone of truth are *profound* - the caster now knows if the target made his/her save or not. This makes the spell *waaaaay* better, but it's still a second level spell! Under the old versions, if you asked a question and the target answered, you weren't quite sure if the target was telling the truth or had made their saves and was fibbing. Now you *know*.

This seems to have massive societal implication. Unless you game in a world where clerical magic is extremely rare, just having a few clerics here and there with the spell available would completely change how a justice system would be run. No more guessing games! Heck it might even remove/lessen the "need" for torture as it's such a potent interrogation tool. It would be awfully useful in the counter-intelligence aspect of the spying business too, or political negotiations etc...

Having clerical magic in general can impact society, but there is always the question of "volume" - how many clerics are there? A single level 3 cleric in town can't heal everyone, or turn back an epidemic - sure she'll save a few, but not the whole town. Serious criminal cases are rare however, and that same cleric would be amply sufficient to assist the justice system (whatever form in may take) in ferreting out the truth.

Surely we aren't the first who have noticed this... comments?

Comment: the implications aren't as straightforward as you seem to think. There are a number of abuses possible:

(1) Corruption: the priest can claim that the subject made the save when they actually failed.

(2) Blackmail: the priest can be persuaded to not really cast the spell at all in the first place.

(3) Illusion/deception: the "answers" provided can be made to come from someone other than the person under the spell. Magic Mouth can come in handy here. If the priest pronounces you to have failed the save, you can then cover your mouth and/or hide your face, and "answer" in monosyllables which actually are just Magic Mouths set to trigger on certain actions from you, e.g. "say 'Yes' when I scratch my nose," "say 'No' when I rub my chin." Minor Illusion would also work just fine here.

(4) As you say, memory modification can also be used to deceive Zone of Truth.

(5) Weasel words/lawyering: sometimes it is possible to say a truth in such a way that many or most onlookers are left with a false impression as to what you actually just said. It's possible that this would be made even easier if your audience believe that you were incapable of telling a lie.

Because Zone of Truth can still be spoofed/fabricated/deceived, it seems unlikely therefore that it will trump all other forms of evidence. Zone of Truth should be considered as strong evidence, much like DNA evidence or a signed confession in modern times--but if Zone of Truth says one thing, and physical evidence says another ("it wasn't physically POSSIBLE for Lord Taltos to have killed Aliera since he was here with the Empress all along"), you have to fall back juries and/or judicial fiat.

So, if your society has well-respected clerics who are integrated into the social structure of the community, Zone of Truth could help a lot (especially in cases of petty crimes, like "Did you know the horse was lame when you sold it?"). But when it comes to the kind of problems PCs get called in to deal with, there are too many other possibilities for Zone of Truth to do the whole job. At best it make PCs pretty sure they can prove who's lying and who's not.

 

[Delazar]

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.