CSI: Waterdeep

[Olgar Shiverstone]

But is the GodofInformation's testimony allowable in court? How do you admit it?

Oh, wait, this is D&D -- we skip the trial and go straight to the execution!

 

[Nifft]

Oh, wait, this is D&D -- we skip the trial and go straight to the execution!

... especially if there's a Paladin in the party!

Of course, Paladins cannot lie, so they're great witnesses.

(A Cleric-Judge could take the transcripts of a bunch of Commune spells -- cast by others -- and verify them one-by-one or all at one go with a single Commune spell. The question would be something like, "Is this a truthful account of SomePC's Commune with you, on the date indicated atop the transcript, oh great Goinfo?")

-- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, if the GoInfo didn't know who did the murder, he shouldn't be able to tell you who did not do it -- all of the above queries should be answered "Unclear".

I don't know about that. Suspect A is not Mind Blanked. A divination is capable of revealing information about him. Suspect B is not Mind Blanked either.

The Commune doesn't reveal that Suspect C committed the murder, but it does vindicate A and B.

But is the GodofInformation's testimony allowable in court? How do you admit it?

Well, now, here's the problem.

A D&D courtroom shouldn't really rely on a spell like Zone of Truth, because someone can make their save and be unaffected... and since it's an area spell, the caster isn't aware.

Likewise, the answer provided by Commune isn't exactly open to independent corroboration. You're taking the word of a cleric - whose job is to prosecute criminals - that his god has fingered the defendant.

Presumably, you could set some sort of audit system in place, where Internal Affairs occasionally runs Communes of their own to check that the Court-Appointed Diviner isn't just making up his answers and saving himself the XP. But can't you see Defence Attorneys making it really hard for 'evidence' that only one person can be privy to being admissible?

-Hyp.

Edit - Addressed to an extent by Nifft while I was typing

 

[Hypersmurf]

(A Cleric-Judge could take the transcripts of a bunch of Commune spells -- cast by others -- and verify them one-by-one or all at one go with a single Commune spell. The question would be something like, "Is this a truthful account of SomePC's Commune with you, on the date indicated atop the transcript, oh great Goinfo?")

You wouldn't want to make Commune the standard procedure for every case, though.

Paying someone to cough up 100XP on a daily basis gets prohibitive.

-Hyp.

 

[Gundark]

This thread reminds me of a x-files/waterdeep crossover that I saw in a dragon magazine a while back. The even had mulder and skully npcs (Daina the skullor something like that and I can't remember the mulder npc's name). Something like that might be interesting too.

 

[Nifft]

You wouldn't want to make Commune the standard procedure for every case, though.

Paying someone to cough up 100XP on a daily basis gets prohibitive.

My point is that one Cleric-Judge could verify an arbitrary number of Communes -- and the penalty for falsifying a Commune should be quite high.

A defendant could be required (by a LN court) to pay the XP himself.

As to vindication: I'd rule that you can only say "A" didn't do the crime if you know who did do the crime. Again, I assert that proving a negative should always be harder than proving a positive.

-- N

 

[Silveras]

The police as an investigative body is a relatively new invention; 19th century, really. Up until then, the police existed primarily as "peace officers", assigned to keep the peace -- meaning they cracked the heads of anyone "disturbing the peace" (making too much of a nuisance of themselves).

So.. the question becomes, has the rest of society "evolved" to match the modern police force ?

Laws will be written to regulate magic, probably some variety of licensing -- along the lines of professional licenses (Certified Public Abjurers, or Royal Magical Association certified practicioners of Transmutation and Divination) -- especially for arcane magic.

Most Divinations would probably be treated like wiretaps or other modern surveillance techniques -- you need probable cause to use them. If the society is particularly law-minded (could be Lawful, might just be litigious), then going "around" the requirements could "taint" the case (and get it "dismissed on a technicality").

Also, there would be likely to be some new specialized spells for such purposes.

For inspirational reading, you may want to track down Randall Garret's series of short stories in the Lord Darcy cycle. "Murder and Magic", and "Too Many Magicians" are two of the titles, though I am more certain of the first title than the second. Lord Darcy is an analogue to Sherlock Holmes, a "consulting detective" in a world where magic has replaced science. His sidekick is Chief Forensic Sorcerer Sean O'Malley, and they consult Chirurgeons (as opposed to MDs) about autopsies of the victims.

As an example of one of the new spells I mentioned, in one of the Lord Darcy stories, the deceased is found at the bottom of a tower with lots of shards of broken window glass scattered about. Sean uses a spell to put the glass pieces back into place as they were a moment after the window was struck, to see how the impact occurred.

[Edit: Oh yeah, there is a 1st edition adventure along this line that was published in Dragon magazine, "Death of an Arch-mage". An excellent resource for this type of discussion.]

 

[Hypersmurf]

Most Divinations would probably be treated like wiretaps or other modern surveillance techniques -- you need probable cause to use them. If the society is particularly law-minded (could be Lawful, might just be litigious), then going "around" the requirements could "taint" the case (and get it "dismissed on a technicality").

Ooh, yeah - right to privacy and all that.

"Sir... Galahad? You didn't show my client a warrant before Detecting Evil, now, did you?"
"I serve the Lord, and wield my sword in His name!"
"... that's a 'no', then?"

My point is that one Cleric-Judge could verify an arbitrary number of Communes -- and the penalty for falsifying a Commune should be quite high.

Oh, to say the least!

Of course, if you're going to falsify a Commune, you'd probably keep a Mind Blank up for a while...

"Okay... the falsified document in this stack. Is it this one?"
No.
"This one?"
No.
"This one?"
Unclear.

A defendant could be required (by a LN court) to pay the XP himself.

Is that Core-Rules-legal? I didn't think you could use XP from an outside source...?

... oh. Or do you mean pay the gold to compensate the cleric? Does he have to pay even if he's innocent?

-Hyp.

 

[enworldatemylogin]

This seems like a good place to ask, what would you rule in the following case.

An assassin strikes, but fails to kill the target. The assassin is wearing a mask and escapes. The target can cast Scry and does.

Does he see the unmasked assassin? Something else? I believe the spell would reveal the assassin, since what you are wearing shouldn't fool the spell as I understand it.

Comments?

 

[Nifft]

Mind Blank:
The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject s mind or to gain information about it. In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn t detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all.

I'm a mean-spirited bastard, and I'd rule that Mind Blank "protects" you from the effects of a Commune -- including the "getting a question answered" effect. If your deity can't find your mind, She isn't gonna be able to leave a message. (Literally, you are "protected" against "information gathering" -- just as a fence might protect you against velociraptors.) So, there will never be an "Unclear" answer regarding the veracity of a Commune.

As to the Defendant paying XP, I'd ignore the core rules. The Goddess of Justice will grant Her priests a special version of Commune that draws XP from a voluntary subject... or even a Rod of Answers which anyone can use, casts Commune on command X/day, and will magically transcribe both the question and the Deity's answer on a specially prepared scroll of parchment. Thus, the question and answer are out in the open, and the Defendant pays the XP. (I'd imagine that frivolous lawsuits are not uncommon, and cause duels -- who wants to pay a portion of his soul just to defend against a fraudulant charge?)

I'd imagine that in a LE land, it would be permitted to use a Hollow Rod of Answers, which allowed you to fill it with Soul Larvae or Liquid Pain in place of draining your own XP, or hiring someone else to hold the Rod while you ask the questions.


Finally:

Commune:
You contact your deity or agents thereof and ask questions that can be answered by a simple yes or no. (A cleric of no particular deity contacts a philosophically allied deity.) You are allowed one such question per caster level. The answers given are correct within the limits of the entity's knowledge. Unclear is a legitimate answer, because powerful beings of the Outer Planes are not necessarily omniscient. In cases where a one-word answer would be misleading or contrary to the deity's interests, a short phrase (five words or less) may be given as an answer instead. The spell, at best, provides information to aid character decisions. The entities contacted structure their answers to further their own purposes.

Note that D&D Deities aren't omniscient. I'd say that, even ignoring my "positive cheaper than negative proof" law, the particular deity may have ignored those who weren't doing anything interesting -- thus, She may not be able to "clear" those who are innocent, so long as they weren't in Her view at the time.

For example, IMC the Goddess of Death, Knowlege, Magic and Law would probably be the one to contact in a murder trial. Let's say person A was just sitting at home playing his guitar all day. Music isn't in Her perview, so She ignores him utterly. Person B was crafting a new spell. Magic is one of Her interests, so She watches her. Person C is Mind Blanked, and actually commits the murder. If you look at the names alphabetically (and meta-game like an S.O.B.), you're going to come to the wrong conclusion:

"Did person A do it?" Unclear.
"Did person B do it?" No.
"Ah-ha!"

-- N