D&D 5E How to run a criminal organization in a City with 8th level spells?

[Dausuul]

The flip side of that is that I can say those words and only those words if:
I paid or ordered someone else to murder John Smith. I didn't do it myself, so I can truthfully say I didn't do it.
I told someone violent than John Smith insulted them, which led to a duel where he died.
I don't consider killing him murder, I consider it an accident or self defense or otherwise justified.
I was under the effects of a compulsion spell, which means it wasn't 'murder' as I had no intent of my own.
I used something to wipe the memory of killing him, for example I did the deed but had a friendly illusionist wipe the memory afterwards.

Um... you do realize that the goal of this system is not to produce 100% guilty verdicts, right? It's to sort out guilt from innocence.

#1: You are not guilty of murder, so you will correctly be found innocent. However, if the magistrate has reason to suspect it, the next question will be "Did you conspire to have John Smith murdered?"

#2: You are not guilty of murder, so you will correctly be found innocent. Talking smack about somebody is not a capital crime; at most, it's defamation. The violent person who did the killing is the murderer here.

#3: If it was in fact an accident or self-defense, then you are not guilty of murder and will correctly be found innocent. Where it gets interesting is if it was murder, but you have convinced yourself that you were in the right. Here, ignorance of the law is a defense. The magistrate would likely preface the question with an explanation of what constitutes murder. But if you can't understand that explanation, you could perhaps slide out from under.

#4: You are not guilty of murder, so you will correctly be found innocent. You did absolutely nothing wrong.

#5: Nice trick if you can do it. But you need a 5th-level spell to wipe someone's memory, and even then it can be restored by remove curse. The only way I know of to permanently wipe memory is via Alter Memories, the 14th-level enchanter ability. But that one doesn't work retroactively. The enchanter could put a spell on you before you commit the murder, and then wipe your memory of doing the deed; but she couldn't wipe your memory of arranging to have the spell cast on you in the first place, which would open you up to a conspiracy charge.

Note that there is one spell that can straight-up beat zone of truth: The 8th-level bard spell glibness, which explicitly fools truth-detection spells. (By a super-strict reading, you could argue that zone of truth prevents you from lying rather than determining your veracity, but I think the intent of the glibness spell is obvious.) So a 15th-level bard can beat the system. But a system which requires a 15th-level bard to beat it is a pretty sturdy system.

On the flip side, asking a question like "Did you kill John Smith" could require me to answer yes if:
He attacked me and I defended myself against the attack.
He was injured by someone else and I tried to save him, but failed.
We were long-time partners, I drifted away from him, then he got sick or killed himself later, and I blame myself for it.
I was under the effects of a mind affecting spell and compelled to do it.

The question was not "Did you kill John Smith?" It was, "Did you murder John Smith?" And you would not be compelled to answer yes in any of those cases.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not 100% certain if this is still true in 5e, but I've found that a headless corpse cannot speak under a speak with dead, and, for that matter, it complicates a raise dead, too. Cities with a sewer system often have a few skulls found on the beach.

Correct, 5E speak with dead fails if the corpse doesn't have a mouth. You could accomplish this via decapitation, but then you have to be sure of hiding the severed head. A more reliable alternative would be to mutilate the face so that the mouth is completely destroyed.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Um... you do realize that the goal of this system is not to produce 100% guilty verdicts, right? It's to sort out guilt from innocence.

No, I don't 'realize' that, and what you posted looks much more like a system to produce executions than one intended to sort out guilt and innocence; I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a system that has the death penalty for refusing to confess to a crime. Your examples explicitly don't allow the defendant to offer a defense, and in your own example if the defendant attempts to respond with anything but a direct murder confession, then he's sentenced to death. That's NOT the behavior of a system that's attempting to sort out actual guilt or innocence, that's a system that is looking for a way to justify executing the defendant. The person who set it up may have had good intentions, but we all know what road is paved with those.

#3: If it was in fact an accident or self-defense, then you are not guilty of murder and will correctly be found innocent. Where it gets interesting is if it was murder, but you have convinced yourself that you were in the right. Here, ignorance of the law is a defense. The magistrate would likely preface the question with an explanation of what constitutes murder. But if you can't understand that explanation, you could perhaps slide out from under.

Doesn't make a difference what explanation the magistrate offers, actually. The spell only compels the subject to answer truthfully, it doesn't require that the subject accept the truth of other people's statements. If the subject doesn't accept the Magistrate's definition, the spell doesn't force them to answer using it. It's actually really common for people to think that legal definitions are nonsense and lies, especially when it involves an emotional issue.

#5: Nice trick if you can do it. But you need a 5th-level spell to wipe someone's memory, and even then it can be restored by remove curse. The only way I know of to permanently wipe memory is via Alter Memories, the 14th-level enchanter ability. But that one doesn't work retroactively. The enchanter could put a spell on you before you commit the murder, and then wipe your memory of doing the deed; but she couldn't wipe your memory of arranging to have the spell cast on you in the first place, which would open you up to a conspiracy charge.

I think that in a thread about countermeasures to investigation methods that include 8th level spells, it's justified to bring up 5th level spells and abilities possessed by casters who can cast 7th level spells.

The question was not "Did you kill John Smith?" It was, "Did you murder John Smith?" And you would not be compelled to answer yes in any of those cases.

The question was actually "Did you kill John Smith", you need to actually read what you quoted. The material that you quoted and are responding to here explicitly says "On the flip side, asking a question like "Did you kill John Smith" could require me to answer yes if". Ignoring that I stipulated that the question was different is unreasonable in general, but it's quite absurd when you quoted the question but denied that it's there.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

If you actually have a society where Zone of Truth is routinely, aggressively used and relied upon, a successful conspiracy might well have a bunch of members who believe things that quietly negate the typical meanings of words. Followers who believe in an unusual cult religion or legal theory could be extremely useful, because they'd be able to give answers that they consider truthful but that aren't actually true, which could confound investigators relying on the spell.

There's a loose group of people in the US who refer to themselves as "Freemen of the Land" and believe that the law only applies to them if they consent to it. Part of this belief is the concept that each person has two 'entities', their real person and a fictitious legal "strawman" that their birth certificate references, and that one uses slightly different names to refer to the two, like "John Smith" for the legal entity and "John of the family Smith" for the real person. There's also a general idea of laws not being valid unless you consent to them. And they fervently believe all of this even though it's all nonsense that has never been upheld in a court of law. If you put one of them in a zone of truth and asked "Did you kill/murder John Smith", they could always answer no because they believe that "John Smith" is just a legal fiction and so couldn't possibly be murdered or killed, and that "John of the Family Smith" is the actual person. Even if they killed him, they might avoid the 'murder' question if they believe that it could only be murder if they consent to the murder law, and they haven't done so.

This would be a good secret for an outside investigator to sort out, as it's reasonable to assume that Zone of Truth dependent investigators would be used to the spell working for them.

 

[Dausuul]

No, I don't 'realize' that, and what you posted looks much more like a system to produce executions than one intended to sort out guilt and innocence; I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a system that has the death penalty for refusing to confess to a crime. Your examples explicitly don't allow the defendant to offer a defense, and in your own example if the defendant attempts to respond with anything but a direct murder confession, then he's sentenced to death.

You have it exactly backward. If the defendant responds with a direct declaration of innocence, they are released. The same trial could go like this:

Magistrate: Please say "I did not murder John Smith," and nothing else.
Prisoner: I did not murder John Smith.
Magistrate: You have testified to your innocence and the gods have confirmed the truth of your words. You are free to go.

The start of this argument was the assertion that you can "beat" zone of truth by doing the politician thing where you weasel around the point and never give a clear answer. But unless you are extraordinarily gifted at weaseling, it's really damn obvious when you're doing that, and there's no reason why an interrogator or a judge should let you get away with it. It works for politicians because their goal is to escape a time-limited interview without giving their opponents a sound-bite to be used against them, and the interviewer has no way to compel them to answer straight. That isn't the case here.

Doesn't make a difference what explanation the magistrate offers, actually. The spell only compels the subject to answer truthfully, it doesn't require that the subject accept the truth of other people's statements. If the subject doesn't accept the Magistrate's definition, the spell doesn't force them to answer using it. It's actually really common for people to think that legal definitions are nonsense and lies, especially when it involves an emotional issue.

Then the same question could be asked as: "You are accused of murdering John Smith. Murder is defined as X, Y, and Z. Please say, 'I did not murder John Smith, as defined by the magistrate of this court.'"

You do run the risk of getting so legalistic that the defendant simply doesn't understand you, and that is a real flaw in this system. Zone of truth prevents deliberate lies; it does not guard against statements whose truth or falsehood the subject simply doesn't know. The magistrate might have to go to some lengths to make sure the defendant understands the question before asking it.

I do think it's interesting that intelligence is a liability in this situation.

I think that in a thread about countermeasures to investigation methods that include 8th level spells, it's justified to bring up 5th level spells and abilities possessed by casters who can cast 7th level spells.

Sure. It's also justified to bring up the 3rd-level spell which negates the 5th-level spell entirely, and the serious flaw in the 14th-level enchanter trick.

I did note that there is an 8th-level spell which flat-out wins: Glibness (by any reasonable reading) can beat zone of truth, straight up, end of story. This system is not infallible. But it's difficult to beat.

The question was actually "Did you kill John Smith", you need to actually read what you quoted. The material that you quoted and are responding to here explicitly says "On the flip side, asking a question like "Did you kill John Smith" could require me to answer yes if". Ignoring that I stipulated that the question was different is unreasonable in general, but it's quite absurd when you quoted the question but denied that it's there.

I was discussing the scenario I set forth, in which the question was "murder." If your goal was to set up a different scenario that doesn't work, and then declare that it doesn't work... yes, you're right, the scenario you constructed does not work. Well done. But I don't see what it has to do with anything.

 

[Satyrn]

So in my campaign, the party works for a city with access to very high level magics. 8th level spells are not out of question when necessary. The only caveat is while revivification is possible, other raise dead magics are not. Further, the city has very good security, and a lot of licence to use it. Aka, there is no "legal protections" that would hinder them in the pursuit of their investigation.

I want to have a criminal organization that has thwarted city security for years, but obviously such an organization will need to be extraordinary to realistically evade the high level magics of such a place. Even basic scrying, zone of truth, and speak with dead can cause extreme issues with evasion.

I'm asking for the community's help with tactics and resources that can be used for this criminal organization. You can assume the organization also has access to high level magics, monsters, and various magic items...within reason. For example, one member with a helm of mind blank or something might be reasonable, but its not going to be where every member has access to such a device.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciate.

An interesting thought popped into my head right away.

Maybe the best way to foil the city's high magic is to avoid magic. Not always, of course, but for example: When the thieves need to spy out a location, scryiny will likely be caught so instead the thieves pay urchins and bums to scout for them. That sort of thing.

In other words, maybe the city has invested so heavily in is magical defenses they've forgotten to defend against the old standbys. It's a common thing for politicians to do.

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

You have it exactly backward. If the defendant responds with a direct declaration of innocence, they are released. The same trial could go like this:

Magistrate: Please say "I did not murder John Smith," and nothing else.
Prisoner: I did not murder John Smith.
Magistrate: You have testified to your innocence and the gods have confirmed the truth of your words. You are free to go.

The start of this argument was the assertion that you can "beat" zone of truth by doing the politician thing where you weasel around the point and never give a clear answer. But unless you are extraordinarily gifted at weaseling, it's really damn obvious when you're doing that, and there's no reason why an interrogator or a judge should let you get away with it. It works for politicians because their goal is to escape a time-limited interview without giving their opponents a sound-bite to be used against them, and the interviewer has no way to compel them to answer straight. That isn't the case here.
...

Right you are

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I was discussing the scenario I set forth, in which the question was "murder." If your goal was to set up a different scenario that doesn't work, and then declare that it doesn't work... yes, you're right, the scenario you constructed does not work. Well done. But I don't see what it has to do with anything.

I was discussing the topic of the thread, and how one of the spells listed in the original post would interact with a particular style of questioning. I'm not really sure why you think that, as a poster in a thread, if you describe a scenario no one is allowed to discuss scenarios similar to what you set up or to contrast your scenario with a some that has some differences. It doesn't seem like an attitude that actually leads to interesting conversation, however.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Correct, 5E speak with dead fails if the corpse doesn't have a mouth. You could accomplish this via decapitation, but then you have to be sure of hiding the severed head. A more reliable alternative would be to mutilate the face so that the mouth is completely destroyed.

True. However, not only do you complicate the casting of raise dead, you can ransom the head.

You could have an interesting triangle: person A needs info from B. C needs the info lost so they kill B. D takes the head and threatens C while offering to ransom it back to A.