D20 Modern: Legalities

[Samloyal23]

Nobody's jamming syringes into your veins or force-feeding you poison. Remember that the constitution focuses more on the right to be free from the hassle and intrusion of searches and seizures than it does the right to actually keeps stuff secret. As long as the police don't break into your house and secretly cast the spell while you're asleep, I don't see much of a problem where privacy is concerned. Besides, since you're not compelled to speak by the spell, nobody's forcing you to incriminate yourself.

In terms of the admissability of ZoT testimony vs. polygraph testimony, it's important to remember that ZoT will never result in false positives. Whereas a polygraph is basically a nervousness detector. It can get set off when a suspect is aprehensive about the question or his answer thereto, even if the answer itself is the truth and nothing but.

The only real danger of ZoT is that juries might be more likely to accept false testimony simply because someone made his will save.

Lawyers who suspected someone of make a save vs. ZoT would need to make sure there were other testimonials by weaker willed witnesses that would contradict or clarify that testimony. Self-incrimination is easy to avoid in our legal system, just plead the 5th...

 

[Henry]

The Stock market and daytrading could be a very different animal because of two words:

"Weal or Woe."

I imagine that's partly because you have to administer the truth drugs. Given that zone of truth is far less intrusive and far less fallible than existing methods. Thus' they'd probably see more use and more acceptence.

However, I imagine the same kinds of laws regarding wire-tapping would cover Zones of Truth.

Does anyone know if the old-fashined "detect lie" spell is still around in 3E? Because that spell detected outright lies, with the only error being a nondetection or misdirection spell.

 

[Falkus]

In terms of the admissability of ZoT testimony vs. polygraph testimony, it's important to remember that ZoT will never result in false positives.

The only real danger of ZoT is that juries might be more likely to accept false testimony simply because someone made his will save.

Did you not notice the contradiction in these two statements?

 

[Nim]

Did you not notice the contradiction in these two statements?

No, a false positive in the context of a lie detector would be registering a truthful statement as a lie. ZoT never does this. It IS, however, vulnerable to false negatives, where an actual lie goes unnoticed because of a successful save.

 

[Samloyal23]

No, a false positive in the context of a lie detector would be registering a truthful statement as a lie. ZoT never does this. It IS, however, vulnerable to false negatives, where an actual lie goes unnoticed because of a successful save.

So the real question is what does a jury do when the testimony of two witnesses in the Zone of Truth is contradictory? Say you arrest an evil necromancer on charges he killed people to turn them into zombies. He testifies that he only stole the bodies of people freshly killed in accidents from a local morgue, and the ZoT spell fails to detect the lie. What's a prosecutor to do? Obviously, one would get the fiendish spellcaster's minions on the stand to testify against him. With their lower Will saves there's no chance of a false negative, so when they swear they saw their master slit a victim's throat and then raise the vic as a zombie, no lie is detected. After that, the jury only needs to decide who is strong enough to resist the spell and who isn't...

 

[Pierce]

ressurection for christs' sake

 

[Falkus]

After that, the jury only needs to decide who is strong enough to resist the spell and who isn't...

That's metagaming. Also, you think the twelve men and women who make up a jury are going to know anything about magic? Juries are made up of the common man. In other words: Stupid.

And irregardless, it does not change the fact that the right not to incriminate yourself is not based on the fact that we do not have access to reliable methods of confirming the truth.

 

[SWBaxter]

No, a false positive in the context of a lie detector would be registering a truthful statement as a lie. ZoT never does this.

Well, that's because it never clearly registers any statement as a lie. Somebody who really wanted to screw up the examination might pretend to be unable to give an answer to a question when that answer is actually the truth.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

By swearing "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God" you have voluntarily failed your saving throw.

Problem solved.

Beyond that, the security at mortuaries is going to be phenominal, along with cemetaries, as necromancy is seen as instant power (see the necronetics section of d20 Cyberscape for why)

Cure spells would be handed out by the church to the faithful, meaning the wouldn't be very many athiests since the gods would be obvious.

The world would be a completely different place, so if you place magic as always having been there, the Holy Roman Empire may possess most of Europe, while the Consilidated Native American Nations rule over in the former US.

Something to think about...

(I did a really huge, long and detailed writeup of this on another board, including the fact that in order to a healing spell to work, the person actually had to truly be one of the faithful of the religion, not just some shmuck)

 

[Falkus]

By swearing "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God" you have voluntarily failed your saving throw.

What if you're lying when you swear said oath?