D&D 5E Zone of truth 5e: Justice system revolution!

[Quickleaf]

Hello

During last session, one player noted that the changes in 5e to zone of truth are *profound* - the caster now knows if the target made his/her save or not. This makes the spell *waaaaay* better, but it's still a second level spell! Under the old versions, if you asked a question and the target answered, you weren't quite sure if the target was telling the truth or had made their saves and was fibbing. Now you *know*.

This seems to have massive societal implication. Unless you game in a world where clerical magic is extremely rare, just having a few clerics here and there with the spell available would completely change how a justice system would be run. No more guessing games! Heck it might even remove/lessen the "need" for torture as it's such a potent interrogation tool. It would be awfully useful in the counter-intelligence aspect of the spying business too, or political negotiations etc...

Having clerical magic in general can impact society, but there is always the question of "volume" - how many clerics are there? A single level 3 cleric in town can't heal everyone, or turn back an epidemic - sure she'll save a few, but not the whole town. Serious criminal cases are rare however, and that same cleric would be amply sufficient to assist the justice system (whatever form in may take) in ferreting out the truth.

Surely we aren't the first who have noticed this... comments?

I noticed this. Here are a list of questions to ask yourself before you go overhauling your setting's justice system:

1. How do we know to trust each cleric's word? Who casts zone of truth on them?
2. He's lying! But that doesn't necessarily mean culpability...everyone has secrets.
3. Is there a 5th amendment equivalent? Or what about "king's secret service" being able to claim "classified"?
4. Is magically obtained evidence considered admissible in court?
5. Lies of omission, question-with-a-question, and all strategies used to defeat truth-telling magic in previous editions always work. And not every truth can be distilled down to a yes/no question – those are the sorts of crimes you'll want to focus on as DM.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I noticed this. Here are a list of questions to ask yourself before you go overhauling your setting's justice system:

1. How do we know to trust each cleric's word? Who casts zone of truth on them?
2. He's lying! But that doesn't necessarily mean culpability...everyone has secrets.
3. Is there a 5th amendment equivalent? Or what about "king's secret service" being able to claim "classified"?
4. Is magically obtained evidence considered admissible in court?
5. Lies of omission, question-with-a-question, and all strategies used to defeat truth-telling magic in previous editions always work. And not every truth can be distilled down to a yes/no question – those are the sorts of crimes you'll want to focus on as DM.

1. Clerics get their power directly from a deity, probably a Lawful one if they're employed by the state. If the cleric uses the divine power of a Lawful deity to lie, the deity may intervene directly.
2. Not every society has a Constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy, even less so if you're talking about pseudo-Medieval Europe.
4. If magically obtained evidence cannot be falsified, would any testimony be accepted without being magically verified?
5. You can ask a yes/no question about whether they have attempted to deceive through omission or clever wording. If they cannot immediately confirm their honest intentions, kill them.

Remember, the purpose of a lengthy legal process is so we can determine the truth with a reasonable degree of certainty. If we could magically verify any statement with 100% accuracy, there would be no need for courts.

 

[Staccat0]

I stole a general rule from Apocalypse World that PCs are essentially the only people of their classes in the world.

There are great musicians but you are the only one who can turn that music into magic.
There are other priests but you are the only only cleric of that god
Lots of people mess with magic, but you have unraveled it's mysteries.

That doesn't make NPCs boring iMO, but it does mean they have a story.

It doesn't help Forgotten Realms though.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Hello

During last session, one player noted that the changes in 5e to zone of truth are *profound* - the caster now knows if the target made his/her save or not. This makes the spell *waaaaay* better, but it's still a second level spell! Under the old versions, if you asked a question and the target answered, you weren't quite sure if the target was telling the truth or had made their saves and was fibbing. Now you *know*.

This seems to have massive societal implication. Unless you game in a world where clerical magic is extremely rare, just having a few clerics here and there with the spell available would completely change how a justice system would be run. No more guessing games! Heck it might even remove/lessen the "need" for torture as it's such a potent interrogation tool. It would be awfully useful in the counter-intelligence aspect of the spying business too, or political negotiations etc...

Having clerical magic in general can impact society, but there is always the question of "volume" - how many clerics are there? A single level 3 cleric in town can't heal everyone, or turn back an epidemic - sure she'll save a few, but not the whole town. Serious criminal cases are rare however, and that same cleric would be amply sufficient to assist the justice system (whatever form in may take) in ferreting out the truth.

Surely we aren't the first who have noticed this... comments?

At least in 2e (I don't recall when it was introduced), there was a detect lie spell. It was a 4th level spell.

I think the level change, and the way the spell works is the same sort of thing that I've seen in a lot of other non-combat spells. It seems they feel the usefulness is lacking, or something like that. In my campaign this is a 4th level spell, with the wording altered, precisely for the reasons you question.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I noticed this. Here are a list of questions to ask yourself before you go overhauling your setting's justice system:

1. How do we know to trust each cleric's word? Who casts zone of truth on them?
2. He's lying! But that doesn't necessarily mean culpability...everyone has secrets.
3. Is there a 5th amendment equivalent? Or what about "king's secret service" being able to claim "classified"?
4. Is magically obtained evidence considered admissible in court?
5. Lies of omission, question-with-a-question, and all strategies used to defeat truth-telling magic in previous editions always work. And not every truth can be distilled down to a yes/no question – those are the sorts of crimes you'll want to focus on as DM.

Actually, it can be reduced any further.

Does the Lord care if what the person is saying is the truth or not?
In a pseudo-medieval world, justice will be by the law of the land, which usually means the local Lord. Who may not care that there is a spell that can determine what's true or not.

Even today there are plenty of places where the truth has very little place in the laws of the land. In a pseudo-medieval world it might be more the norm.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

5. You can ask a yes/no question about whether they have attempted to deceive through omission or clever wording. If they cannot immediately confirm their honest intentions, kill them.

Q: Have you attempted to deceive through omission or clever wording?
A: No. [But I knew you would jump to the wrong conclusions based on my words, and I have not attempted to correct your misapprehensions.]

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Q: Have you attempted to deceive through omission or clever wording?
A: No. [But I knew you would jump to the wrong conclusions based on my words, and I have not attempted to correct your misapprehensions.]

That's deception through clever wording.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's deception through clever wording.

It is a true answer to your question, and therefore legal in a Zone of Truth.

"On a failed save, a creature can't speak a deliberate lie while in the radius." It's not a lie.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

It is a true answer to your question, and therefore legal in a Zone of Truth.

"On a failed save, a creature can't speak a deliberate lie while in the radius." It's not a lie.

It will have to be an extremely specific situation where you can be sure that the interrogator will make the wrong conclusions from your statements without you needing to be clever or omit anything at all. Especially considering that the interrogator is likely a professional and quite experienced at asking the right questions. Hardly something you should base your plan on if you want to get away with a crime.

IMO it doesn't really make sense to consider how ZoT would fit in a trial based on modern real-world legal principles. Those principles have evolved over thousands of years in a world where all evidence is unreliable to some degree, and witness statements even more so. In a world where ZoT and other reliable Divination magic is available, the judicial system would likely have evolved along very different paths. Their idea of a fair trial may be that the accused must be given the opportunity to prove their innocence by speaking inside a Zone of Truth.

 

[Coroc]

In a medieval context everyone of lower nobility (knight etc.) or clergy and upwards would refuse to testify under such a spell because it would damage their honor to be even considered a liar. Any one demanding it anyways would be subject to a honor challenge and duel eventually or a church bane.


And - btw. things have not changed much today. In many countries politicians are above the law granting them immunity during their mandate and automatic dismissal of any charges referring to any decisions they made during their active carrier thereafter.