D20 Modern: Legalities

[Sir Osis of Liver]

What about the impact of the various healing spells, ressurection for christs' sake. What would the effect be on hospitals and suck when the church starts handen out bonafied miricels. What effect will the church have on sociaty in general when not only is the exestance of the christian's God proven, but the existance of "dieties" from other faiths as well?

 

[Samloyal23]

So, if i use Clairvoyance or Arcane Eye to peek into the women's lock room at my gym or spy on a supermodel while she takes a shower, am I going to jail?

 

[Falkus]

n a world where magic worked certain things would be different. With the ability to prove a confession false (if it is) the right to not incriminate yourself would not exist.

We have the ability to do that today. Yet, truth drugs are illegal for police forces to use, so I imagine that a zone of truth would be as well.

 

[Samloyal23]

We have the ability to do that today. Yet, truth drugs are illegal for police forces to use, so I imagine that a zone of truth would be as well.

Then again, part of the reason things like truth serums and polygraphs are inadmissable is because they are too easy to manipulate and not 100% accurate. A zone of truth might be fooled, but it would never give a false positive without external interference...

...That said, the need for truth might outweigh the right to avoid self-incrimination.

 

[Khorod]

In a modern setting? If its a case of more or less recent 'Awakening' where magic has just arrived, I would imagine all of it would be looked at with suspicion. All but the most benign spells (including about 95% of most d20 magic) would require special licensing or be illegal.

Even magics that compare reasonably to existent technologies would not necessarily be exempt. Look at what new technology does in this world- digital rights laws often seem to be the opposite of early laws on the same subjects. Why? The wizardlike ease of abusing the rights.

In a world where magic has remained down the ages? Well, everyone would have spellcasters. Spellcasters would likely be organized in some fashion- be it a priesthood, union, or otherwise. Magics are most likely divided up into three categories- agressive and generally illegal, neutral and judged on a case by case basis, and mostly harmless but carefully evaluated if the situation demands it.

Combined with the usual fears people have of 'different people', the folks whose careers involve magic in some way are probably mostly in it together to keep things out of the news.

But in such a world, any particular magic item would be thought of as akin to a particular technology. But contrary to that thought, magic item creation as it appears in D&D is probably less common. Creating loads of magic items to arm heroes that save the world, at intensive personal cost... is part of epic high fantasy. Its not really appropriate to any modern world I could judge as such.

 

[arscott]

We have the ability to do that today. Yet, truth drugs are illegal for police forces to use, so I imagine that a zone of truth would be as well.

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.

Another interesting idea is spells modified to conform to legal standards. What if, for instance, there was a Zone-of-truth spell for job interviews that only worked with questions employers were legally allowed to ask you?

Of course, all the various issues regarding magic and privacy rights pale in comparison to the interaction between divine magic and the first ammendment's gaurantee of religious freedom.

 

[Falkus]

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.

How is it less intrusive? It's still a violation of the right not to incriminate yourself.

 

[SWBaxter]

Then again, part of the reason things like truth serums and polygraphs are inadmissable is because they are too easy to manipulate and not 100% accurate. A zone of truth might be fooled, but it would never give a false positive without external interference...

Isn't Zone of Truth negated by a save? The SRD says:

Creatures within the emanation area (or those who enter it) can’t speak any deliberate and intentional lies. Each potentially affected creature is allowed a save to avoid the effects when the spell is cast or when the creature first enters the emanation area.

... which appears to me to imply that if you make the save, you avoid the effects and so can say whatever you like (which makes sense, it's only level 2, after all). For the judicial system to rely on this kind of spell, they'd have to have some idea of the save DC and Will save bonuses involved. I suspect it'd be treated similarly to a polygraph - sometimes used as an investigation tool, but not admissable in court.

...That said, the need for truth might outweigh the right to avoid self-incrimination.

That would most likely be a cultural distinction, much as it is today. Some justice systems rely on criminal charges being proved (mostly) objectively, some don't.

 

[takyris]

I'd see a Zone of Truth spell as working almost exactly like polygraph tests today -- unreliable, proven wrong once or twice in big famous cases, and inadmissable in court. If I can make a Will save against it and succeed -- or worse, if I can pay somebody to modify my memory (per the spell) so that I can truthfully say that I don't remember doing it, this spell is, while not useless, not something the courts would want to use.

And yeah, a Fireball is deadlier than a hand grenade, so I'd imagine it's regulated pretty closely.

If you're someone who casts spells by a way other than study (a d20 Past sorcerer, for example), you might have to register yourself as a known spellcaster, because there's no way for them to prevent you from learning fireball.

I can see even Cure spells having trouble. As soon as you've got a (game-mechanics-wise) foolproof system that enables the rich to recover from any injury while the poor have to make do with Treat Injury checks, you're just asking for trouble. Governments might try to regulate Cure spells as a way to stop rioting in the streets.

Any professional sports association would have to start packing the field with Detect Magic items or casters in order to disprove claims of performance-enhancing magic. On the other hand, police and military forces might start packing enhancement bonuses onto their units as often as possible, unless treaties with other countries or international watchdog organizations forbid the use of such spells.

Necromancy, and in particular incantations that can raise or animate the dead, are bound to be ugly. My guess, offhand, is that in order to avoid a massive load of legal problems, most governments would declare that anybody who died for longer than 24 hours and was then brought back by magic, or anybody who is raised as self-willed undead, is considered to be deceased for purposes of contractual law -- ie, they lose their land, they no longer hold any office they held before, and so forth. Some crazy rich folks might use this as a loophole -- they have themselves killed, then raised, in order to avoid legal scandals, and they will the money to a nonprofit organization that they themselves then take over later.

 

[arscott]

How is it less intrusive? It's still a violation of the right not to incriminate yourself.

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 keep 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.