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

[Derren]

There's a lot of modern liberal jurisprudence leaking in here.

I noticed that too. But even compared to modern justice systems ZoT would be very effective, let alone compared to a medieval/renaissance era justice system where thorough investigations were unknown and most sentences were spoken by a lord on a whim based of the accounts of the victim and defendant, if not the mob took matters into their own hands.

Sure, people can play in their settings that the justice system is centuries more advanced than everything else, but if you keep it in line with the other technological and cultural developments in D&D things like innocent until proven guilty does not exists and the tiny chance that the ZoT doesn't work or that theoretically the cleric might lie is no reason not to base sentences on the results of the ZoT.
The defendant kneels before the lord, the cleric gives his ok and the lord asks him if he did whatever he is accused of. If he refuses to speak or tries some tricks with half truths he is assumed guilty. (If the lord wants to be thorough he tortures him until he speaks, again only the truth thanks to ZoT). Case closed.

In the end, ZoT would only promote the use of torture. Torture to make him speak and ZoT to make sure it is the truth which removes the single biggest problem with confessions under torture.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It will have to be an extremely specific situation where you can be sure that the interrogator will make the wrong conclusions from your statements without you needing to be clever or omit anything at all. Especially considering that the interrogator is likely a professional and quite experienced at asking the right questions. Hardly something you should base your plan on if you want to get away with a crime.

Agreed. It's quite difficult to set up this kind of situation, and a trained interrogator won't fall for it. That illustrates the point I was trying to make: skill still matters, and ambiguity still exists. You can't solve all of your truth-related problems by asking one simple yes-or-no question.

IMO it doesn't really make sense to consider how ZoT would fit in a trial based on modern real-world legal principles. Those principles have evolved over thousands of years in a world where all evidence is unreliable to some degree, and witness statements even more so. In a world where ZoT and other reliable Divination magic is available, the judicial system would likely have evolved along very different paths. Their idea of a fair trial may be that the accused must be given the opportunity to prove their innocence by speaking inside a Zone of Truth.

That's a fascinating take on the subject. Senate filibuster meets judicial proceeding meets fifteen minutes of fame. Imagine someone committing a minor crime specifically so they can be placed in a Zone of Truth (cast by a widely-respected priest) and have an audience of fellow citizens when they spill the beans on corruption in the Church, or an orcish invasion from space, or something. You'd still have to persuade the crowd that you're not insane and not mistaken, but at least they're starting out predisposed to believe that you're telling the truth.

You can also imagine someone trying the same thing for pettier reasons, e.g. to air a hated rival's dirty laundry in the most embarrassing way possible.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I noticed that too. But even compared to modern justice systems ZoT would be very effective, let alone compared to a medieval/renaissance era justice system where thorough investigations were unknown and most sentences were spoken by a lord on a whim based of the accounts of the victim and defendant, if not the mob took matters into their own hands.

Sure, people can play in their settings that the justice system is centuries more advanced than everything else, but if you keep it in line with the other technological and cultural developments in D&D things like innocent until proven guilty does not exists and the tiny chance that the ZoT doesn't work or that theoretically the cleric might lie is no reason not to base sentences on the results of the ZoT.
The defendant kneels before the lord, the cleric gives his ok and the lord asks him if he did whatever he is accused of. If he refuses to speak or tries some tricks with half truths he is assumed guilty. (If the lord wants to be thorough he tortures him until he speaks, again only the truth thanks to ZoT). Case closed.

In the end, ZoT would only promote the use of torture. Torture to make him speak and ZoT to make sure it is the truth which removes the single biggest problem with confessions under torture.

Historically, the mistake here is that torture was used to find truth. Torture was used to [-]find[/-] make someone willing to confess to being guilty. This solved things nicely, and had the knock on effect that those actually guilty were encouraged to never look guilty, on pain of torture.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ancalagon]

I concede that the change to the spell doesn't *have* to change how justice, investigation and intelligence work is done. But you have to concede is certainly has a very significant potential to do so.

This is what I find remarkable here. A number of spells have changed in 5e. Shield in 5e is *very* different than the 3e version. But that doesn't *change* anything about the world at large, just the particulars of how the spell is used. And it's the same for most spells.
The changes to zone of truth are, in a way, less significant than the changes to shield... yet the fact that the caster *knows* when the spell is working is enormous, and it can have very wide ranging consequences.

IMO it doesn't really make sense to consider how ZoT would fit in a trial based on modern real-world legal principles. Those principles have evolved over thousands of years in a world where all evidence is unreliable to some degree, and witness statements even more so. In a world where ZoT and other reliable Divination magic is available, the judicial system would likely have evolved along very different paths. Their idea of a fair trial may be that the accused must be given the opportunity to prove their innocence by speaking inside a Zone of Truth.

Very well said!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It is a true answer to your question, and therefore legal in a Zone of Truth.

"On a failed save, a creature can't speak a deliberate lie while in the radius." It's not a lie.

It is a deliberate lie to the yes/no question of whether they attempted to deceive through clever wording. If you know someone will jump to the wrong conclusion, based on your words, then there is an intent to deceive which is executed through clever wording. It may well also be a case of lying by omission, since you are choosing to omit the facts which would allow them to arrive at the correct conclusion.

Remember, you aren't attempting to deceive some puny mortal asking questions. You are attempting to deceive the omniscient god of truth and justice who can read your thoughts as they form. You cannot attempt to deceive them through simply trickery, because they can compel you to reveal your attempt (or at least give you the choice between honesty and silence, where the cleric and state can accept silence as an admission of guilt). Like many other simplifications to the spellcasting system in 5E, this spell simply works.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The changes to zone of truth are, in a way, less significant than the changes to shield... yet the fact that the caster *knows* when the spell is working is enormous, and it can have very wide ranging consequences.

The fact that the caster knows is not a huge deal, considering that they can force you to make up to 99 saves before beginning the interrogation. After the first four minutes, it's a pretty safe bet that the spell is working.

 

[77IM]

The more common use of this spell would be to establish the loyalty of your subjects. When the King bestows a knighthood and extracts an oath of service, you can be dang sure that it happens within a zone of truth cast by the highest-level cleric of the state religion. In fact, there's probably a yearly re-upping ceremony where they all get together and reaffirm their allegiance.

 

[77IM]

Also, note that since "An affected creature is aware of the spell," the interrogator needs only stand within its area to know that it's working and that the cleric hasn't faked the casting. If the cleric also stands within the area, then they can be trusted to reveal the saving-throw state of each person being questioned. (As [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] points out above, eventually the cleric will fail the save.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It is a deliberate lie to the yes/no question of whether they attempted to deceive through clever wording. If you know someone will jump to the wrong conclusion, based on your words, then there is an intent to deceive which is executed through clever wording... Like many other simplifications to the spellcasting system in 5E, this spell simply works.

It happens not infrequently on the internet that one knows someone will misunderstand one's words, and yet does not pause to enlighten them about their mistake, because one simply does not care enough about the person who is wrong. (Often one will killfile/Ignore that individual right after, but that doesn't work in real life.) I rather suspect it's about to happen right in this very thread.

So, no, it's not a lie and is therefore legal in a zone of truth.

Yet another legal thing to do in a zone of truth is to ignore one questioner and answer the question asked by another.

Q: did you attempt to deceive, etc.?
Q2: (sign language) are you enjoying this yet?
A: (verbally) No.

Q2 can be asked by a confederate, or possibly even in one's imagination. Answering a different question is after all one of the standard techniques for beating a polygraph in real life.

Plus you've still got issues with illusions, Magic Mouth, Dispel Magic, etc.

Sorry, but your attempt to game the system with your "simple" yes/no question is just as complicated as the original ZoT problem. It doesn't improve anything.


Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app