Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mordane76" data-source="post: 2952025" data-attributes="member: 7172">I'm preparing for a storyline in my campaign where one of the characters' father has been incarcerated for treason.  His father was up to this point a loyal vassal and a landed noble, but now his lands have been stripped and he has been thrown into the dungeon pending execution.Now - as one of the laws of the country his father is in, his son has the right to challenge the ruling.  I haven't spoken with the player as to what this actually means, but I think he thinks it means he can 'throw down the gauntlet' so to speak against the person who accused his father of treason, and challenge him to a duel.  This is not what I actually mean, so I know I need to clarify my meaning to the player, which I will.By challenge the ruling, I mean the character will be given a reasonable length of time to uncover evidence clearing his father if any such evidence exists.  He will be provided with the evidence given against his father, and if he cannot find anything in the time period allotted that proves his father's innocence, the ruling will stand and his father will be executed.Now - here's the core of my problem.  In a world where a 2nd level cleric spell can force someone to tell the truth, or a 5th level wizard spell can completely dominate the will of an individual, and the only option in the area of the zone of truth spell is to either resist it or refuse to answer (which more or less equates to lying because you can't answer the question truthfully), why is there a need for trials?  My current idea is that the nation has a law about the use of such divinations that states as follows: "If there exists physical evidence collaborating the commission of the crime in question, and that evidence passes criteria for authenticity, there is no need to expend the resources of the nation on superfluous divinations.  Such divinations will only be used in the event that no physical evidence can be obtained or the validity of such physical evidence is questionable.  Spellcasters used for such purposes must pass certain security criteria before the findings of their divinations are accepted as evidence."Does this seem unrealistic or unbelievable?  Does this smack of me being a Rat Bastard DM by forcing the characters to utilize detective skills instead of wrapping up the story with a dandy divination or by beating up the guy who pointed the finger at the character's father?  Or am I being uncreative by thwarting the usage of these spells to handle this storyline?  While I expect some people will not like my idea on how to handle this, if you don't like it, tell me what you would do differently so that this storyline isn't over in five minutes instead of taking a session or two and providing a number of hooks for future stories.</blockquote>

Verification