Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Seghan 08-27-06, 06:57 PM	I have been thinking about setting up a shorter campaign of Sharn inquisitives and the like, looking to emulate the feel of a prime time police drama (as I like to call it, SVU). I am looking for some advice on how to do this well with a group of ~6 PC's. I have a little experience with long range adventures, but I wonder about ways to keep things fresh with the same cast of characters doing the same day in and day out.
Seghan 08-27-06, 07:39 PM	I have seen the sharn inquisitives thread as well. I'm just looking for police procedural flavor more
Thwyvylyn 08-27-06, 07:42 PM	Do exactly what L&O does. Take your headline from likes of the New York Post and turn it into an adventure episode. One of Dick Wolf's rules as I understand it is to never show traveling times and never show personal lives. The characters in L&O are always on the job, not travel to or between scenes and certainly not having a personal life. Titlecards are usually the only way we even know where the characters are.
Ricohard_Draconis 08-27-06, 08:00 PM	With the exception of the male lead in special victims who has a family, mostly so they can use it as a counterpoint to the horrors. but yes, its a very bitty feeling, never show anything thats not absolutely relevant.
mhacdebhandia 08-28-06, 07:56 PM	Do exactly what L&O does. Take your headline from likes of the New York Post and turn it into an adventure episode. One of Dick Wolf's rules as I understand it is to never show traveling times and never show personal lives. The characters in L&O are always on the job, not travel to or between scenes and certainly not having a personal life. Titlecards are usually the only way we even know where the characters are. I like the "never show travelling times" rule - the closest you get is a conversation on the way back to the car after interviewing a witness or something. "Never show personal lives", though, only applies to the original Law and Order and to Criminal Intent; both Stabler's and Benson's personal lives have come up on the show quite often and I can recall times when Munch or Tutuola shared anecdotes from their off-duty lives, though of course the focus remains on the crime being investigated as much as possible. In fact, I'd take a cue from that: when you want to emphasise the impact that a given crime has on the lives of the victims or their families, use the personal lives of the PCs to spotlight it. For instance, in an episode about child molesters finding victims in chatrooms online, Stabler ended up confronting his oldest daughter about her online activity and sharing his fears about what could happen to her online with her. You don't have to interject "educational" messages like that into your games - and very few that made sense in-game would apply in the real world, anyway - but you could do things like establish over the course of a few sessions that one of the PCs was establishing a romantic relationship with someone and then have that NPC, or a relative, be implicated in an investigation. Everything relates back to the job. Titlecards could be fun, too: you could make a little stand in front of your DM's screen or on the table where you play with the part of Sharn the new scene takes place in. If you use a laptop at the table or can keep one nearby, you could even play the scene-change percussion from the series!
mhacdebhandia 08-28-06, 08:10 PM	I had another thought. If you want to keep it fresh, do what the shows sometimes do. Highlight an unusual corner of the city's population or cultural life where the crime took place. Morgrave University, a kalashtar enclave, the cliffside docks, a fashionable restaurant in an expensive district, the headquarters of a guild run by a dragonmarked house, the Race of Eight Winds, a religious festival of the elven Priests of Transition, et cetera. Keep the surroundings of the crime fresh, make your PCs navigate an unfamiliar social situation just like the cops on Special Victims Unit sometimes have to do in Chinatown or the social circles of the elite of New York, have the motive for the crime tie in to unique circumstances affecting the subculture involved (like the episode about illegal Chinese immigrants being diverted into the sex industry). Law and Order is always about murder; Special Victims Unit is always about sex crimes or the like; Criminal Intent is always about "major cases" affecting important people and usually rooted in the odd psychology of the perpetrator. Study how each show manages to make its stories fresh despite the repetitive subject matter and you should get plenty of ideas as to how you can do the same for your games.
Seghan 08-28-06, 08:32 PM	Thank you all, these are great suggetions. I do indeed use a laptop (with the sovolier_sage DM screen) and I look forward to incorperating the "ding-ding" as well as perhaps some other sound effects. And I will certainly be reading up and writing up for some unique locations.
Alpha_Moose 09-01-06, 12:59 PM	Are you also making the PCs convict the criminals? That would be interesting to have 2 groups in the PCs, the cops and the DA.
Kreistor1 09-01-06, 01:06 PM	One thing to watch out for: I would suggest not allowing magical interrogation of suspects and witnesses, ie. no Zone of Truth. Even if we had a lie detector that was 100% accurate, the courts would never allow it. It is your right not to testify against yourself. So, any use of Mind Affecting(Compulsion) spells or abilities (spell-like, psionic, or supernatural) should be viewed as a violation of the individual's right to privacy. Even Zone of Truth on the Witness stand should be a violation. Besides, if you don't, it will be really hard to create a Detective story.
Alpha_Moose 09-01-06, 01:20 PM	One thing to watch out for: I would suggest not allowing magical interrogation of suspects and witnesses, ie. no Zone of Truth. Even if we had a lie detector that was 100% accurate, the courts would never allow it. It is your right not to testify against yourself. So, any use of Mind Affecting(Compulsion) spells or abilities (spell-like, psionic, or supernatural) should be viewed as a violation of the individual's right to privacy. Even Zone of Truth on the Witness stand should be a violation. Besides, if you don't, it will be really hard to create a Detective story. I agree with your point, but these are more-or-less medieval courts so I would see no problem with someone using Zone of Truth, but some people would have a non-detection spell on them or just make the will save, so it could end up pointless. The Mind Control things could make it even more fun. Someone kills his wife and blames it on a local wizard using Suggestion. Actually finding fault would be even harder because of that.
Kreistor1 09-01-06, 01:26 PM	more-or-less medieval courts Really? Khorvaire has the "Code of Galifar" which is a Rennaisance concept. The Nations are easily far enough along politically and culturally to be viewed as Post-Rennaisance, and so a true Legal system based on the "Code of Galifar" as a constitutional document is not inappropriate.
Shady314 09-01-06, 04:49 PM	Really? Khorvaire has the "Code of Galifar" which is a Rennaisance concept. The Nations are easily far enough along politically and culturally to be viewed as Post-Rennaisance, and so a true Legal system based on the "Code of Galifar" as a constitutional document is not inappropriate. Page 132 of S:CoT describes a trial by jury in Sharn. Clearly the code of Galifar allows the use of zone of truth and the like by authorized officials. Remember magic is an integral part of the setting. They aren't just going to decide not to use magic. Oh and I'm really not sure how the code proves post rennaisance. The Magna Carta? Hammurabi's Code?
Seghan 09-05-06, 10:45 PM	What a great thing if I could work around psionics and the Eye of Aureon to aid in the detective feel. The special powers must exist, but I wonder if there is some way to minimize them from the DM chair. I didn't think of dividing the group. I love the idea, but I'd need a lot of players I think. Maybe a way to play off inter-service rivalries. Guard vs. Citadel vs. Redblades. I see that sort of friction conducive to the cop drama feel. The rampant corruption of the Guard could be a problem, as I think portraying as much as is called for in S:CoT would be a distraction from the feel. There must be some way to deal with it. BTW, what am I watching as I type this? L&O:SVU, of course! :D
Kreistor1 09-06-06, 11:35 AM	Shady, just because someone writes something in a source book, that doesn't mean you should use it. Remember, the authors aren't lawyers, they are Writers (ie. artists) for the most part. WotC hires people that write good stories, not Lawyers and Engineers that can design good legal systems and design buildings that can stand-up. The knowledge of most artists on subjects like law, science, and other technical topics are, to say the least, highly questionable. So, we as DM's have to screen their product based on our own knowledge. I know, for instance, that a fully functional Lie Detector would never be allowed in court in our world (from my study of Law in University). I don't know that the author of S:CoT ever studied law at all, and the casual use of Zone of Truth tells me that they did not. The author doesn't know the arguments against it, so he allows it... Consider the use of ZoT by the Watch. It has gross repercussions that would virtually guarantee that no one without magical powers of their own could get away with crime (so why have PC's investigating crime?). Drag someone off the street. "Have you ever committed a crime? What crime did you commit?" Okay, boys, tell the judge and send him to jail. Not in my Sharn. Not at all. The repercussion of ZoT in the hands of the Law Enforcers as admissable evidence is a full prison system, a lack of crime anywhere, and a paranoid population afraid of even the appearance of having done something wrong. So, no, I complete reject the suggestion by the artist that wrote S:CoT that ZoT is admissable evidence. It's a poorly thought out, ill conceived, and improper suggestion.
ArcTan 09-06-06, 01:53 PM	Ever read Keith Baker's Crime and Punishment? He based a lot of the Master Inquisitive's abilities on that -- and MI's *do* get ZoT as an SLA. And he *does* say things like ZoT and other abilities work, and are used in court. The reason we don't use lie detector evidence in court is that we don't *have* a fully functional lie detector. Polygraphs aren't real lie detectors -- all they can detect is the feelings of stress or tension associated with telling a lie, which may just as easily be associated with the fear involved in telling a truth that you fear will be perceived as a lie, or a truth only half-remembered or uncertain, or whatever. That's why they aren't allowed -- they dangerously mislead juries. None of that deters law enforcement from trying to create ever more accurate and useful lie detection tools, and none of that means that we'd create some arbitrary law *against* using a perfect lie detector if a perfect lie detector could ever be invented. Yes, privacy is a concern, and hence there could be laws against doing what you say -- randomly testing people with lie detectors off the streets -- but I see no reason why the cops or the courts wouldn't want a lie detector available for someone who's already been arrested. The court is supposedly trying its best to secure the truth, once a case has been opened before it, and yet it purposely hamstrings itself to guesswork and weighing unreliable witness testimonies when it *has* a much better tool available? What would actually happen would be a slow, tiered process as a tool became steadily more and more reliable and gained credibility in the eyes of the court. Fingerprint analysis used to not be admissible evidence -- now it is. Handwriting analysis used to be always inadmissible -- now it's changing, thanks to the use of computers rather than subjective human analysis. If polygraphs ever become better than they are now, they might go through a similar evolution. What would prevent the use of ZoT as you describe it would be a largely corrupt and inefficient law enforcement system that doesn't, in its current state, really have a strong incentive to crack down on all kinds of crime, and a powerful set of private interests that benefit from maintaining a semi-anarchic environment on the streets, and the fact that ZoT is still expensive and those who are skilled enough with magic to use it are rare, so that a Master Inquisitive who really did spend all his time buttonholding strangers and asking them to try really hard to remember if they'd ever jaywalked would be wasting his time, compared to using his talent to interview actual murder suspects who'd already been caught by ordinary detectives. On the other hand, a wealther, much more centralized, much more Lawful-aligned, much less freedom-loving civilization could and would make ZoT the backbone of an extremely harsh and intrusive legal apparatus. What does that sound like? That's right, Zilargo. I'd be surprised if the Trust doesn't routinely maintain ZoT-enchanted stations through which citizens are "processed" on a regular basis.
Shady314 09-06-06, 02:54 PM	Shady, just because someone writes something in a source book, that doesn't mean you should use it. Well thanks for reminding me of that I had forgotten. :rolleyes: I'm not trying to force you to use it if you don't want to. I was just mentioning a canonical sourcebook in relation to a relevant topic. Heaven forbid. :rolleyes: If you don't like it by all means don't use it. I will sleep fine I assure you. :) For the sake of argument I could also counter attack with: just because a spell is giving you some trouble doesn't mean you should have NPCs pretend that it doesn't exist. Nothing is more eye rolling. Unless you cut ZoT completely which would be a rather over the top reaction. I have to say ArcTan is spot on. Love the Zilargo idea. Eberron is a world of prevalent low level magic. The idea that all of Khorvaire would just say "better not use magic to solve this" runs counter to the entire principle of the setting. If we had a perfect lie detector we would absolutely use it. No one would be convicted on the machine alone though and neither is anyone in Sharn convicted through use of ZoT alone. Because it actually is NOT perfect. You can make the will save. It can be fooled through magic. You can mislead interviewers with evasive statements that are technically true. Why did you rob the bakery: "I was hungry" .... (and it was a job for the Boromar clan.) The example given in S:CoT is of a TRIAL. Once you've made it to that point we are far beyond grabbing random person off the street. Again I remind you ZoT COMPELS truthfulNESS. It does not force absolute and complete TRUTH without fail. It's a more powerful equivalent of being sworn in. And I'm sure there ARE limitations on time and place that it can be used. The Sharn Watch grabs a random thug, uses ZoT and questions him and maybe they get useful information but they can't use that alone to arrest and/or prosecute anyone especially the thug. They could use it for information gathering purposes. So they learn Boromar has a shipment of drugs coming into dock 13 at midnight but they still need to nab the shipment and tie it to someone within Boromar before they can prosecute. Just rule that they need reasonable cause like current law enforcement does. Or a warrant or similar. It is just a tool, not the end all and be all of law enforcement you seem to think it is. If you disregard the magic that law enforcement would employ you increase the power of any criminal spellcaster using for example Glibness. And where is the line drawn? Is guidance permissible? Speak with Dead? None of it is 100% reliable. The answer is not that they just don't use it for bizarre ethical reasons. But that it is used to gather/increase the evidence against someone. Speak with Dead says my wife's lover Tim killed me in a jealous rage. They grab Tim and question him under ZoT. Or if you want maybe they need Tim's permission to use ZoT yet and he declines. Suspicious. Once they've gathered enough evidence though they can arrest him and process him and now he is fair game to ZoT. And if they never find any evidence on Tim aside from the use of Speak with Dead, and he passes under a ZoT (makes the will save) he is never prosecuted. Outrageous? Not to me. But if that is to you then that's fine. Run your game how you want. Do you allow them to use any magic? If you don't then I find that a lot less believable than the idea that a completely different fantasy world where magic is real just MIGHT somehow manage to have a different legal system than us. :rolleyes:
Kreistor1 09-06-06, 03:34 PM	The ZoT violates one of the most basic rights: you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. If you are guilty and placed in a ZoT you can: 1) Be evasive and be found out, thereby testifying against yourself. 2) Tell the truth and absolutely testify against yourself. 3) Not speak and appear guilty, testifying against yourself. The laws against a ZoT are already in place. You cannot be forced to testify against yourself. Since using a ZoT on a guilty suspect is a violation of his rights, the police cannot use ZoT in any of their investigations because it would potentially violate the rights of the guilty party. That doesn't prevent innocent people from requesting it, but the police cannot act on someone's choice not to subject themselves to such a device. Recently, police have been asking people in regions of serial offenders to come in and willingly provide DNA to eliminate them as suspects, but the Police cannot force a DNA test on someone without evidence against them strong enough for a judge to issue a warrant for it. ZoT would be applicable in the exact same way. You can come in and have it cast at your discretion to prove your innocence, but the police cannot use it to prove someone's guilt. So, no, ZoT as an offensive weapon against crime is not acceptable according to our legal system. Since I run my Eberron as 1800's era (well after Britain implemented a true legal code), the legal system includes the basic concepts listed above, and so ZoT doesn't hit the street in my campaign.
Kreistor1 09-06-06, 03:57 PM	BTW, I don't read the novels. Arguments based on those will not fly with me. Now, I notice that ZoT has a (Save: Will Negates) attached to it. I can't say how the novel treats that, but as a L2 spell, if it come from an item, it will only be effective around 60% of the time on even a commoner. You have to have a pretty brutal Int to get the DC over 20. Even so, there is always a 5% chance of Save, so the ZoT is inaccuate at best 5% of the time. That makes it a lot like our Earthly Lie Detector. Next, the question arises: can one tell if the person resisted? The caster can tell that the spell worked on the area, but not necessarily the individual that is inside. Detect Magic might make that determination, but the enchantment is on the area, not the individual. I don't see a definitive answer on whether someone standing in the aura that resists would scan as being affected or not with Detect Magic: Detect Magic would report the aura from the ZoT, but may not reveal success or failure. Which leads to another arbitrary decision on whether someone can tell if a creature in a ZoT is telling the truth or lying. So, ZoT is unreliable. It may be unprovably inaccurate. So why is it better than a jury?
Shady314 09-06-06, 04:36 PM	The ZoT violates one of the most basic rights: you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. I don't recall reading that under the code of Galifar. ::rolleyes: Good to know if I'm tried in Khorvaire. :rolleyes: :D I don't understand your need to defend your houserule. It is a houserule. I'm not stopping you. Just understand other people don't use it for good reasons. 3) Not speak and appear guilty, testifying against yourself. Like when people plead the 5th?????? The laws against a ZoT are already in place. You cannot be forced to testify against yourself. In Khorvaire?????? I can't say one way or the other. I don't know the Code of Galifar. Since using a ZoT on a guilty suspect is a violation of his rights, the police cannot use ZoT in any of their investigations because it would potentially violate the rights of the guilty party. So MANY MANY modern day assumptions on the legal system of a world that exists in a weird mixture of the iron age, medieval age and renaissance. That doesn't prevent innocent people from requesting it, but the police cannot act on someone's choice not to subject themselves to such a device. Recently, police have been asking people in regions of serial offenders to come in and willingly provide DNA to eliminate them as suspects, but the Police cannot force a DNA test on someone without evidence against them strong enough for a judge to issue a warrant for it. ZoT would be applicable in the exact same way. You can come in and have it cast at your discretion to prove your innocence, but the police cannot use it to prove someone's guilt. Geez I could have sworn I included the possibility in my post that the law does not accept evidence obtained through an illegal usage of ZoT. Oh wait I DID. Thanks for restating a point I already brought up in an example. Remember the murderer Tim refusing to undergo the ZoT? OR did you not actually read what I wrote? So, no, ZoT as an offensive weapon against crime is not acceptable according to our legal system. Since I run my Eberron as 1800's era (well after Britain implemented a true legal code), the legal system includes the basic concepts listed above, and so ZoT doesn't hit the street in my campaign. Finally we get to the part where you admit this is a houserule based on your own interpretation of the setting which I will repeat is FINE. Why am I arguing a houserule with you? You don't need to defend the houserule! I was speaking only of the canonical Sharn in S:CoT. And again I ask what DOES "hit" the street when it comes to magic? How do you defeat glibness and the like? I know not everyone has access to such a spell but some people will. Heads of Boromar for sure could spring for it on themselves.
Shady314 09-06-06, 04:43 PM	BTW, I don't read the novels. Arguments based on those will not fly with me. Now, I notice that ZoT has a (Save: Will Negates) attached to it. I can't say how the novel treats that, but as a L2 spell, if it come from an item, it will only be effective around 60% of the time on even a commoner. You have to have a pretty brutal Int to get the DC over 20. Even so, there is always a 5% chance of Save, so the ZoT is inaccuate at best 5% of the time. That makes it a lot like our Earthly Lie Detector. Next, the question arises: can one tell if the person resisted? The caster can tell that the spell worked on the area, but not necessarily the individual that is inside. Detect Magic might make that determination, but the enchantment is on the area, not the individual. I don't see a definitive answer on whether someone standing in the aura that resists would scan as being affected or not with Detect Magic: Detect Magic would report the aura from the ZoT, but may not reveal success or failure. Which leads to another arbitrary decision on whether someone can tell if a creature in a ZoT is telling the truth or lying. So, ZoT is unreliable. It may be unprovably inaccurate. So why is it better than a jury? Novels???? I mentioned Sharn: City of Towers which is a sourcebook by KEITH BAKER and James Wyatt. And Kreistor mentioned Crime and Punishment which is also not a novel and not even a sourcebook or DnD but just a possible source of good ideas. The earthly lie detector is MUCH MUCH MUCH more unreliable than 5%. 5% is the goal/dream of everyone involved in lie detector technology research. I'm not going to argue with you if you don't bother to closely read what I wrote. I said ZoT would never be enough to solely convict anyone BECAUSE it is imperfect and can be defeated as most lvl 2 spells can and never said it replaces a jury! I specifically cited pg 132 of S:CoT which describes a freaking trial BY JURY in Sharn!!!!! Of course a jury is by no means the only legal system in use in the world today (Britain you mentioned and I believe doesn't use a jury) and comes with it's own set of flaws. There is no perfect legal system. This could be a good discussion if you would stop using your ridiculious strawman arguments. Perhaps the problem is you don't own S:CoT and are assuming some things. Just PM me and I will happily describe for you the example of a trial BY JURY in Sharn as laid out by the book. PS EDIT: I would say you absolutely cannot tell if someone resisted ZoT. It would say so in the spell description if you could and it would make it much too powerful for a lvl 2 spell. I don't think ZoT should be detected as magic on a person when they leave the zone since the compulsion is, as you point out, completely area based. Once they leave the area and lose the compulsion even if you could detect the magic on them there's still no way to tell if it was resisted or not.
Alpha_Moose 09-06-06, 05:55 PM	Do you (the OP) have DMG 2? It has some suggestions for trial and such. Also in it is a good idea for a murder: A wizard is scribing scrolls or something in an inn. The door and windows are all magically locked and alarmed. When the innkeeper checks on the wizard a couple days later he is dead, but there is nothing physically wrong with him (no stab wounds, ect.). If he was killed by someone using phantasmal killer and dimension door or some other magic, how could the PCs find who killed him? That is how higher ranking people would die in Sharn. No physical evidence at all. Taking some ideas from (whether you like the books or not) Harry Potter might be good. People being controlled or their memories being wiped and such. One other thing, which Law and Order are you trying to reproduce the most (or am I too stuck on the threads name)?
Seghan 09-06-06, 06:29 PM	I have access to the DMG II; I'll check that out, Moose. Thanks. I want a cop drama feel, SVU is the specific L&O I was thinking of, but I don't nessicarily want to match it exactly.
Ricohard_Draconis 09-06-06, 09:12 PM	Of course a jury is by no means the only legal system in use in the world today (Britain you mentioned and I believe doesn't use a jury) and comes with it's own set of flaws. There is no perfect legal system. err... yes, yes we do. trial by 12 good men and true has been around in britain dating back as far as the Magna Carta (where Barons could only be outlawed by a council of their peers). Perhaps your thinking of our Magistrates courts which are used for minor crimes, analagous i suppose to the american misdemenors.
Shady314 09-07-06, 07:12 AM	err... yes, yes we do. trial by 12 good men and true has been around in britain dating back as far as the Magna Carta (where Barons could only be outlawed by a council of their peers). Perhaps your thinking of our Magistrates courts which are used for minor crimes, analagous i suppose to the american misdemenors. Yes that would be what I was thinking of and I was confusing the adversarial system. Thanks for the clarification.
Seghan 09-07-06, 08:23 AM	What sort of player character would make for a good ADA? Perhaps a beguiler or a rouge with PrC in inquisitor from Dragonlance (havn't read it, I assume it could be imported)? or is there an eberron PrC that I missed? Or perhaps a Half-Celestial Half-Fiend Half-Dragon Drow Warlock/Ninja/Ghostface Killer/Interior Decorator?
Alpha_Moose 09-07-06, 11:09 AM	What sort of player character would make for a good ADA? Perhaps a beguiler or a rouge with PrC in inquisitor from Dragonlance (havn't read it, I assume it could be imported)? or is there an eberron PrC that I missed? Or perhaps a Half-Celestial Half-Fiend Half-Dragon Drow Warlock/Ninja/Ghostface Killer/Interior Decorator? What about RDAs? Robot Defense Attorneys. :D I think that a plain wizard or rouge would work, but rouges are more chaotic inclined, so it would be harder to believe. What about other spells used during the trial? The jury would need to be protected from mind-altering ones. (This is reminding me more and more of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law).
Kreistor1 09-07-06, 04:04 PM	And again I ask what DOES "hit" the street when it comes to magic? How do you defeat glibness and the like? I know not everyone has access to such a spell but some people will. Heads of Boromar for sure could spring for it on themselves. I would think the equivalent of detectives should have detect magic available. Wondrous items (goggles) always on? Glibness can only help you overcome a Bluff check. That can't overcome actual evidence. You can lie and lie and lie, but it's still your knife in his back. The power of Glibness resides in how far you take the Bluff skill. Actually, a better item would be a +20 to Sense Motive. Only 2000GP, and only a few guys on a force would need it. Anyway, with Suggestion, Dominance, the problem runs a lot deeper, and ZoT doesn't stop a caster from casting a Suggestion that everything that you say is true. (Same level spell as Glibness, but available at a lower level for a Sorcerer than Glibness is for a Bard.) I'd rule Suggestion dominant over ZoT, due to spell level. Shady, you repeatedly mention that you don't have the Code of Galifar. Right, you don't and I don't. I've already presented that mine is based on a more modern era concepts. So, mine includes basic human rights (later extended to non-humans like an American Constitutional Ammendment). Now, I want to clear something up. You said If we had a perfect lie detector we would absolutely use it. YOU opened the conversation of whether ZoT would be acceptable on Earth. When you open a branch of conversation, you've got to be prepared to face arguments disagreeing with it. Your attitude towards my disputing your contention is reprehensible. It clearly demonstrates that you don't have the fundamental basic of legal discourse -- politeness -- developed yet. I said ZoT would never be enough to solely convict anyone BECAUSE it is imperfect So, all your cops are required to have physical evidence: witness testimony isn't enough? That's a huge problem. No "He said-she said" trials can go to court. Bob enters the hospital with a knife wound. He says, "Joe tried to kill me." The knife is long gone. There might be a witness, but that's ZoT testimony. The guy gets off because there's no physical evidence, just a knife wound and a man's word Joe did it. In our world, Joe goes to jail. The wounded man's testimony is enough to put him away, even without a knife. Just PM me and I will happily describe for you the example of a trial BY JURY in Sharn as laid out by the book. I own it. But I rejected ZoT from the start, based on my Code of Galifar (which includes the Right to not Testify against Yourself). So it is irrelevent. You have a different code. So, yeah, I wonder why you're arguing at me about what is in and out of Eberron. Oh, and one last thing: The Sourcebooks are suggestions and guidelines, not rules. Discarding ZoT isn't a Houserule: it is an implementation detail.
Shady314 09-07-06, 07:12 PM	I would think the equivalent of detectives should have detect magic available. Wondrous items (goggles) always on? Glibness can only help you overcome a Bluff check. That can't overcome actual evidence. You can lie and lie and lie, but it's still your knife in his back. The power of Glibness resides in how far you take the Bluff skill. Actually, a better item would be a +20 to Sense Motive. Only 2000GP, and only a few guys on a force would need it. If I was foolish enough to allow such a game breaking item for such a price sure it'd be great. It's funny you can't see how useful glibness would be in a he said she said situation. In Sharn I'm sure most of the case is settled right at the scene and being the one believed is a huge advantage. If you've given Sharn an efficient incorrupt police force that's fine with me. That's your Sharn though not the Sharn of S:CoT which is set up with a less useful police force to proivde opportunities for PCs. You act like if you allow ZoT it will be used everywhere 100% of the time which is clearly not true. The Watch does not have those kinds of resources. Which furthers explains why not every detective is equipped with goggles of permanent detect magic anymore than they all walk around with scrolls of ZoT. Anyway, with Suggestion, Dominance, the problem runs a lot deeper, and ZoT doesn't stop a caster from casting a Suggestion that everything that you say is true. (Same level spell as Glibness, but available at a lower level for a Sorcerer than Glibness is for a Bard.) I'd rule Suggestion dominant over ZoT, due to spell level. That's a rather odd way to decide superiority for a spell like that. Suggestion is a level 2 spell to a bard and level 3 for a sorc/wiz. Glibness is bard only and level 3 though an artificer could make a scroll. ZoT is lvl 2 for a Clr/Pal. Again most of these spells are accomplished through scrolls or magic items by artificers. So ruling suggestion is more powerful because a sorceror can get it at class level 6 and a bard gets glibness at level 7 at the earliest is rather... unusual. I don't know anyone that decides spell superiority like that. And you suggest casting it on the Watch? Sounds like a bad plan to me. They operate in pairs you know. Cast a spell on one and you **** off the other. With suggestion you have to suggest a course of action a sentence or two long and it can be defeated by a will save. A suggestion to believe everything you say wouldn't pass muster. It is unreasonable. You would want to suggest something like "I am not the most likely suspect because NPC X had so much more to gain. You should interrogate her more thoroughly." It's not going to be easy casting this on your interrogator unnoticed since I am sure your partner is always watching your back and most people would have to whip out their artificer scroll to do it. If you allow simple blanket statements like, believe everything I say, you increase the power of the spell too much. Shady, you repeatedly mention that you don't have the Code of Galifar. Right, you don't and I don't. I've already presented that mine is based on a more modern era concepts. So, mine includes basic human rights (later extended to non-humans like an American Constitutional Ammendment). Yeah great but that is clearly not the canonical Sharn of S:CoT and it's funny you feel the need to defend your houserule. Just play and enjoy it. What exactly are you arguing for? That ZoT is unethical? It's no more unethical than a lie detector which is used in the real world. And maybe it is unethical based on the legal system we have now in our world but this is Eberron. Now, I want to clear something up. You said Way to take something and edit it out of context. IS that seriously all you read or are you being obtuse? I immediately followed that sentence with the statement that ZoT is NOT a perfect lie detector. So arguing about it like that is ridiculous. It basically IS the lie detector of Eberron. YOU opened the conversation of whether ZoT would be acceptable on Earth. Only by pointing out it was as reliable as real world lie detectors which WE USE. So then yes it would be acceptable on Earth just as much as real lie detectors are if not more so because it is magic and magic is what Khorvairians use to accomplish goals and solve things. Tharashk bounty hunters use things like know location and such. When you open a branch of conversation, you've got to be prepared to face arguments disagreeing with it. Your attitude towards my disputing your contention is reprehensible. It clearly demonstrates that you don't have the fundamental basic of legal discourse -- politeness -- developed yet. And being obtuse by quoting out of context IS polite? Your not disputing my contention anyways because you accept ZoT works you're just arguing why your houserule is superior as if anyone cares. So, all your cops are required to have physical evidence: witness testimony isn't enough? That's a huge problem. No "He said-she said" trials can go to court. Bob enters the hospital with a knife wound. He says, "Joe tried to kill me." The knife is long gone. There might be a witness, but that's ZoT testimony. The guy gets off because there's no physical evidence, just a knife wound and a man's word Joe did it. Your legal knowledge is astounding. A knife wound is physical evidence. A guy with a stab wound saying Joe did it is enough to have the authority to question them both under a ZoT. In our world, Joe goes to jail. The wounded man's testimony is enough to put him away, even without a knife. And so a testimony backed up by a voluntary ZoT statement is somehow bad how again???? Thanks for helping my argument. I own it. But I rejected ZoT from the start, based on my Code of Galifar (which includes the Right to not Testify against Yourself). So it is irrelevent. You have an incredibly sophisticated level of law for Eberron. A level of law that completely disregards the founding principle of Khorvaire which is to use magic to accomplish tasks. I just think it's pretty weird to assume in a world founded on magic people decided to pretend it does not exist and not use it. Anyways youre argument stills makes no sense. You don't allow them to EVER use ZoT because it works just like a real life lie detector? Huh? :confused: We can plead the fifth and refuse to take a lie detector. I'd agree NPCs in Eberron can do the same. You have a different code. So, yeah, I wonder why you're arguing at me about what is in and out of Eberron. I'm not. I just pointed out the canon Sharn earlier and you jumped all over me defending your houserule. I have no idea why you are so insecure about it. All most people would say is "I am aware of S:CoT but chose to disregard it in favor of my own." Youre the one going on and on about how your houserule is so superior because in our world the law is different. :rolleyes: Oh, and one last thing: The Sourcebooks are suggestions and guidelines, not rules. Discarding ZoT isn't a Houserule: it is an implementation detail. No theyre canon. Theyre the official basis from which we can pursue further discourse from a neutral and objective standpoint. They are not rules true. No one forces us to play DnD anyway we don't want. But if everyone wants to discuss Sharn then S:CoT is the basis we do it from. S:CoT is the reason you are saying "In MY Eberron the Code....etc." which is all fine to me. Enjoy the way you play.
Kreistor1 09-08-06, 12:39 PM	It's funny you can't see how useful glibness would be in a he said she said situation. In Sharn I'm sure most of the case is settled right at the scene and being the one believed is a huge advantage. I don't underestimate GLibness. I just wonder why you think it's so all powerful worrisome when a similar level Spell (Suggestion) is far more useful for manipulating people. "In Sharn" should read "In your Sharn". That is an implementation issue, and not something I can or will bother arguing about. You act like if you allow ZoT it will be used everywhere 100% of the time which is clearly not true. The amount of use it gets is an implementation issue. The Watch does not have those kinds of resources. The Watch has as many resources as I choose to give it. An implementation issue, again. Which furthers explains why not every detective is equipped with goggles of permanent detect magic anymore than they all walk around with scrolls of ZoT. They do if I choose to give them these items. So ruling suggestion is more powerful because a sorceror can get it at class level 6 and a bard gets glibness at level 7 at the earliest is rather... unusual. There are more sorcerers at Level 6 than Bards at Level 7. Which is going to be a bigger concern for the watch? Suggestion or Glibness? Cast a spell on one and you **** off the other. *shrug* Some cops are constables, others sergeants, others detectives. A Sergeant isn't going to be angry that a Detective gets better equipment. Yeah great but that is clearly not the canonical Sharn of S:CoT So? It's my Sharn. Rule 0. That ZoT is unethical? It's no more unethical than a lie detector which is used in the real world. I've presented my argument countering your claim, including the legal foundation against your statement. You have yet to demonstrate any counter. I do not and will not accept your claim. A suggestion to believe everything you say wouldn't pass muster. It is unreasonable. How is it unreasonable? Please explain. It can be completed in the time frame. It isn't harmful to himself or anyone else. It is an action that can be performed. It is plausible for someone to not lie to a cop, so it's not unbelievable. A knife wound is physical evidence. A guy with a stab wound saying Joe did it is enough to have the authority to question them both under a ZoT. The knife wound does not link the suspect to the crime, it only proves someone stabbed him, not that Joe stabbed him. He could have stabbed himself. A third party could have stabbed him. It is still the victim's word that Joe did it, so his word is all the police are convicting Joe with. And so a testimony backed up by a voluntary ZoT statement is somehow bad how again Yes, because ZoT is unreliable. The vic can take the stand, succeed on a will save, get away with the lie, and Joe goes to jail, with the jury trusting the vic because they can't tell he made the save. Joe may not wish to take the stand because he would have to admit to something else (not necessarily illegal) in order to stay out of prison. Even so, if he does tell the truth, the jury is now in a position of not determining who is lying, but who tried to make a Will Save. Youre the one going on and on about how your houserule is so superior because in our world the law is different. I'm not the only one going on and on. Please review your own position on the admissibility of Lie Detectors in our world. You have an incredibly sophisticated level of law for Eberron. Yes, I have a higher level of Law for Eberron. I chose that because I advanced Eberron to a more modern political, socliological, and legal age. I'm not. I just pointed out the canon Sharn earlier and you jumped all over me defending your houserule. Interesting. I thought I was jumping all over the writiers of S:CoT, not you. No theyre canon. Theyre the official basis from which we can pursue further discourse from a neutral and objective standpoint. Sorry, but no. Sourcebooks are suggestions, not rules. You'll not get me to agree to any other interpretation.
Shady314 09-08-06, 06:14 PM	I don't underestimate GLibness. I just wonder why you think it's so all powerful worrisome when a similar level Spell (Suggestion) is far more useful for manipulating people. Uh because it lasts a long time and makes even your most outlandish lie seem like absolute truth? Yeah useless. :rolleyes: Suggestion is not more useful for manipulating people. You are limited to a sentence or two of suggesting a specific action or idea they should do/have. Yeah it'd be great if you could turn suggestion into some form of dominate ( I suggest...you should do anything I ask! MWHEHEHE Im such a genius user of magic MWHEHEH) to control them but that's your own personal interpretation. "In Sharn" should read "In your Sharn". That is an implementation issue, and not something I can or will bother arguing about. There is the Sharn of S:CoT and anything you change from that goes against the official presentation of Sharn I and others will use a basis for arguments and discussions. Or how in the world do you ever discuss Sharn if you accept absolutely no commond ground to stand on before you discuss the differences you've introduced? There's absolutely nothing wrong with you having your houserule. I cannot stress enough how little I care that your rule 0. The amount of use it gets is an implementation issue. Yes as always you can rule 0. Of course you can rule 0 the entire RAW if you want. Doesn't change the fact that makes it DIFFERENT from canon. The Watch has as many resources as I choose to give it. An implementation issue, again. Which again is going against the entire presentation of Sharn in S:CoT. I don't care if you get rid of the floating buildings in Sharn because you don't lke them. Do whatever you want in your campaign but you can stop acting shocked that anyone might mention a freaking sourcebook in regards to the CHANGES you have made. By your logic the entire ECS is just filled with suggestions and guidelines. You could introduce gods that directly interact with their followers. And I have no problem with you doing that in your campaign but it does go against the official presentation of Eberron so when you get with a group of fellow players, like on say a message board, you should understand that it is your own personal houserule. They do if I choose to give them these items. Yes I know. How many times can you say rule 0? I only pointed out if you give evryone on the Sharn watch all these items the gameworld breaks down. There are more sorcerers at Level 6 than Bards at Level 7. Which is going to be a bigger concern for the watch? Suggestion or Glibness? As usual your logic just completely breaks down. A lvl 3 spell supercedes a lvl 3 spell in power because a pc class can cast it at one level before another??? Huh? It also becomes abundantly clear you don't bother to read everything I wrote. I pointed out this is Eberron and magic is used through scrolls, items and wands made by ARTIFICERS. You're more likely going to encounter a character that paid for a spell to be cast on him like this or is using an item or read a scroll etc. than an actual spellcaster using it. *shrug* Some cops are constables, others sergeants, others detectives. A Sergeant isn't going to be angry that a Detective gets better equipment. ???? Wow you REALLY didn't bother to read what I wrote. I was pointing out that unless you have mass suggestion you had better be sure a guards partner does not see you cast suggestion on him. Thats part of the reason they have partners. It's also part of why glibness is a superior spell to use. You cast it on yourself well before the watch shows up and they have no way of knowing. Whereas with suggestion you have to be very sly and hope they don't make the save then make sure you're suggestion works well. Fail either way and you've pretty much proven your guilt. At the least you've assaulted the Watch. I never said anything about the equipment they wore angering them. Your misreading of thatspeaks volumes about how your letting your perceptions affect how you read what I wrote. So? It's my Sharn. Rule 0. Oh my god. You finally admit you are using Rule 0 to CHANGE Sharn. There is no "So" to that. I've lost count of how many times I have said this is perfectly fine. I've presented my argument countering your claim, including the legal foundation against your statement. You have yet to demonstrate any counter. I do not and will not accept your claim. A fallacious argument. And I've presented a couple countersmultiple times but since it's already become clear youre not actually reading everything I wrote I can't be too surprised that you apparently have no idea what I've said. Here is your counter. Eberron is based on the prevalence and use of low level magic. The principle of the entire setting is rather than technology Eberronites tend to use magic as the system by which things are accomplished. Throughout the setting magic is used in a variety of ways for law enforcement purposes. Scrying, guidance, know location, etc. The idea they would for some reason choose to base their legal system on pretending certain spells do not exist because of ethical ramifications, especially since Eberron is a murky grey world of morality where good does evil and vice versa and intrigue and deception etc. abound is laughable to me at best. When you throw in that this spell functions exactly like a real life lie detector which IS used by law enforcement in the modern age which you said you base your legal system on makes your whole argument, which seems to be that your houserule is just such an obvious, intuitive, intelligent one, utterly ridiculous. How is it unreasonable? Please explain. It can be completed in the time frame. It isn't harmful to himself or anyone else. It is an action that can be performed. It is plausible for someone to not lie to a cop, so it's not unbelievable. It's not really an acton that can be performed. It's too passive and it is not specific enough. It is too blanket of a statement and it is not plausible that in an interrogation a suspect will not lie to you. Everyone is a suspect and may have done it and therefore everyone is a potential liar. It also is a persistent action for the entire length of the spell. For as long as suggestion lasts he has to believe everything you say?? Thats basically GLIBNESS. You are overpowering the spell with this interpretation of it. You can use it this way if you like but then it is just a shorter form of dominate which I see nothing about the spell that suggests it is meant to be. It's why the spell spefically says you cannot tell someone to jump in the pool of acid. You have to say that pool is not made of acid and looks refreshing. You should jump in. You have to be a little more circumpsect in your suggestions. I did offer an example of how you could word it similarly to achieve about the same results of throwing suspicion onto another. The knife wound does not link the suspect to the crime, it only proves someone stabbed him, not that Joe stabbed him. He could have stabbed himself. A third party could have stabbed him. It is still the victim's word that Joe did it, so his word is all the police are convicting Joe with. What in the world is your argument with this????? First you said this can happen in the real world and should still happen like this in Sharn and now you seem to be arguing against your own example. I said in Sharn I agreed someone could possibly be convicted on this. They would just use ZoT to back it up just like someone could take a lie detector to lend credence to their testimony in our world. You cannot seriously not see why it would actually be better to use ZoT? If the suspect is telling the truth that Joe stabed him he will say so under ZoT. He steps on the eye of Aureon or similar, barrister asks him who stabbed you, and he says Joe. So he either made a will save and lied or is telling the truth. As opposed to using no magic so anyone could lie 100% of the time. It is like a more powerful versionof being sworn in. Imagine if putting your hand on the bible actually did compel you to tell the whole truth and nothing but! If Joe comes up to it and makes his will save and lies he didnt do it so their stories contradict then process can be repeated. No further questions need be asked and information gleaned from unwarranted questions cannot lead to convictions since the evidence was obtained illegally. Same as our world. ZoT is better than our lie detectors because you don't get false positives. No one will lie in a ZoT or be seen as lying because they are nervous, scared etc. With our lie detectors someone might tell the truth and detect as lying. That can't happen with ZoT. If you're in it you have to deliberately lie after passing your will save or be evasive. Yes, because ZoT is unreliable. The vic can take the stand, succeed on a will save, get away with the lie, and Joe goes to jail, with the jury trusting the vic because they can't tell he made the save. Joe may not wish to take the stand because he would have to admit to something else (not necessarily illegal) in order to stay out of prison. Even so, if he does tell the truth, the jury is now in a position of not determining who is lying, but who tried to make a Will Save. Youre serious? You do realize this already happens right? People can lie with or without ZoT. The example without ZoT is vic doesn't bother with a will save and lies his ass off. Either way the jury has to figure out who is lying. ZoT just helps. If Joe isn't going to act to prove his innocence then too bad for Joe. So what's the problem? That Joe might be asked an unrelated question that has nothing to do with this crime and be convicted for it? In our world you swear to tell the whole truth when you take the stand for whatever may be asked. If you don't you are charged with perjury no matter what the lie or the question was unless the judge rules you don't have to answer that. You think ZoT shouldn't be used because it can be defeated? EVERY spell can be defeated in some way. So by your logic they should use no magic whatsoever in Eberron to solve crimes. I'm not the only one going on and on. Please review your own position on the admissibility of Lie Detectors in our world. I realize lie detectors are not permissible in our world as factual evidence in court. That has little to do with my argument. My argument was ZoT is not so different from our lie detectors which do get used. You have been arguing ZoT can never be used because??? I still am not sure why. Because it is as accurate as a lie detector? Because having ZoT means that apparently citizens don't have a 5th amendent equivalent (completely plausible in Eberron) even though even in our world you can use the 5th and refuse to take a lie detector? Even in our world if a guy with a knife wound says you stabbed him, you cant prove otherwise and remain silent while he goes on and on and takes a lie detector to back him up you're getting convicted same as in the five nations. So again I ask why in the world you interpret ZoT to be used as the end all and be all of law enforcement when S:CoT makes clear that it isn't and so have I. Yes, I have a higher level of Law for Eberron. I chose that because I advanced Eberron to a more modern political, socliological, and legal age. Great so you completely reinvented Eberron. That sounds great. Enjoy! I really don't care. Turn Eberron into FR if that floats your boat. Rule zero ALL you want. It is FINE to me. it is just crazy when you then try to argue this is just as understandable and acceptable to everyone as the Sharn of the sourcebook. :rolleyes: Interesting. I thought I was jumping all over the writiers of S:CoT, not you. Well I didn't write it and I am the one you are talking to so I have no idea how you thought this. You've also prefaced few of your statements with "in regards to S:CoT...." or similar. But then again you've already made plenty of questionable assumptions so I'll add this to the list. Sorry, but no. Sourcebooks are suggestions, not rules. You'll not get me to agree to any other interpretation. Which must mean you argue ALL the time. And looking at the boards this is true. If you won't accept the sourcebook as doing what the sourcebook does you might as well make up your own definition to words and be surprised when people don't understand you. :rolleyes:
Alpha_Moose 09-09-06, 08:48 PM	What classes are your players being? You should put in the Urban Ranger variant from Unearthed Arcana and let them take groups or houses instead of creature types.
Kreistor1 09-11-06, 10:19 AM	It is FINE to me. it is just crazy when you then try to argue this is just as understandable and acceptable to everyone as the Sharn of the sourcebook. Actually, no I didn't. You read that between the lines from the start.
Ravenscroft 09-11-06, 12:07 PM	I think that a plain wizard or rouge would work, but rouges are more chaotic inclined, so it would be harder to believe. Would this ROUGE :D , be an Artificer-made product that acts like Zone of Truth? Why would more attractive wizards not be considered?
eehamburg 09-11-06, 12:10 PM	Would this ROUGE :D , be an Artificer-made product that acts like Zone of Truth? Why would more attractive wizards not be considered? I believe that it is a product used by Houses of Shadow during shows ... or maybe while they are doing espionnage, like pretending to be consorts or something ... possibilities?
Ravenscroft 09-11-06, 03:21 PM	Not in my Sharn. Not at all. The repercussion of ZoT in the hands of the Law Enforcers as admissable evidence is a full prison system, a lack of crime anywhere, and a paranoid population afraid of even the appearance of having done something wrong. How does your legal system handle spells like Reincarnate (http://d20srd.org/srd/spells/reincarnate.htm)? It is a 4th level spell , fairly readily available in Eberron one would think , even if not common. Someone commits a murder. The murderer has pre-arranged to be reincarnated. The entirely new body has commited no crime. Is there a legal definition of The Soul in the Code you use? The body that committed the crime is destroyed. How would such a case be resolved? This has not cropped up in my current campaign. But in a previous campaign (not Eberron , or run by myself) , two PCs had to have someone they killed resurrected , to testify that they were killing him at the time , not the man they were currently accused of killing. In the legal system being run , spells compelling truth were inadmissable , as were any divinatory spells that found evidence. Divination spells could be used to gather evidence , but were not of themselves considered evidence.
Alpha_Moose 09-11-06, 05:38 PM	Would this ROUGE :D , be an Artificer-made product that acts like Zone of Truth? Umm... yes, that's exactly what I meant...:shifty: Why would more attractive wizards not be considered? Because that would distract the jury. Nymphs, succubus, and dryads are also not welcomed.
Errant 09-11-06, 09:51 PM	I just had to pipe in on the issues of admissability of magic in the justice system. I simply can't understand why people cling so hard to the Common Law legal systems of our world, as flawed as they are, & ignore the tools of investigation available through magic. This is a world where magic is a known fact of life. Any half educated member of judiciary or law enforcement is going to be fully aware that people can be charmed, dominated & possessed or even have their memories altered, voluntarily or not, through the use of magic (not to mention crimes committed by shape changers of all kinds). BUT how often are such things going to happen? I would argue that such events will be very rare, not unheard of but rare. To completely throw out the use of magic in an investigation, be it Detect Magic, Zone of Truth or Divination would be asinine. That would be like declaring DNA evidence inadmissable because sometimes it can be planted at a crime scene. Sure its possible, but in the vast majority of cases it will be reliable and false hits can be minimized or eliminated through corroboration. Having said that, I will note that I do not for a moment suggest any system would ever be perfect, nor that someone should ever be found guilty of a crime SOLELY based on any kind of uncorroborated evidence, magic or otherwise. Corroboration will always be key. Witnesses, other spells, physical evidence & experts' opinions can all provide corroboration. I admit, I've always been a fan of the Inquisatorial System of justice much more than the US/UK/Australian Common Law systems. (Look up Inquisatorial System on Wikepedia.com for a good summary). As such I would quite happily make Sharn judges juge d'instructions, using their experience & training to direct investigations as they see fit in order to discover the truth, calling on experts as needed. Hell I think even the Judge Dredd legal system is better than the Common Law system, but have been an operational police officer for the last 11 years (in Australia) might bias my thinking. ;) Anyway, thats my 2c worth, no offence intended to anyone.
Errant 09-11-06, 09:55 PM	How does your legal system handle spells like Reincarnate (http://d20srd.org/srd/spells/reincarnate.htm)? It is a 4th level spell , fairly readily available in Eberron one would think , even if not common. FWIW I would argue that since reincarnation, & possession/magic jar etc would be known possibilities the legal definition of a "person" (who might be found guilty of a crime) would/should focus on the responsible individual's consciousness, whether inhabiting their own native body or not.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 09-11-06, 10:02 PM	Ok first thing is first to the OP: 1) I just reading novels such as Sherlock Holms, and Judge Dee, (chinesse crimal detective novels) And then steal crimes, and how they were pulled off shamelessly. Your best bet is used a more sight based adventure system. The crime happened at Sight X, and the evedence points to sights A, B, C and D. it also implacates persons Y, Q, L at sights A, C, M. Let the PCs go from sight to sight in the order they want, piece to gether the evedence, and solve the myster on their own. That being said they may become stuck from time to time. I sujest having some other clues ready to drop on them in the from of annonamouse tips, and new found evedence for just such occasions. If the the A.D.A were an NPC I would make him/her an expert. If it were a PC I would allow them to be whatever the PC choose within reason. As a general rule of thumb I'd advise again importing other classes/PrCs from other setting such as Dragon lance and Fariun into ebberron as the system not disigned with each other in mind. Onto the ZoT debate: If ZoT were a real spell in the real world, or if Ebberron courts were an exact duplicate of Canadain legal system, (I'm Canadain so that is how I have to draw my legal references from) then I do not believe Zone of Truth would be admissable in a court of law. As already stated in the above arguement, due to allowance of a will save, and the ability to evade the question, Zone of Truth would be considered too unreliable to admit into a trail. the police, and crime detection agencies however would still use it as a mean of detecting crime. Spells such as Sujestion, and Dominate would also be illegal to use by anyone, for the same reason law enforcement agencies are not aloud to use truth seriums or other drugs during interogations. Ebberron is however not an exact duplicate of our criminal justice apperatus. In the fictional world of Ebberron ZoT is admissable in the courts. I however do not agree with the RAW, and have house ruled other wise, should it ever come up. In the case of the victum claiming Jeo stabbed him, and not having any other evedence: Jeo would not be conficted due to lack of evedence. There must be physical evedence connecting a person to a crime before it can ever go to trial. It is the same when a rape case is through out becuase the only evedence they have is the victum identifying her attacker. That actually isn't even enough evedence to secure a warrent for a DNA sample. Again however, in the fictional world of Ebberron things may different, as documents such as; The Napoleonic code, the Magna carta, and the Canadain/American constatuition do not exsist. Things may be different. As far as what age of developement Ebberon is in, I would have to agree that it is at lest exciting it renniance era, and entering its industrail age. I say this becuase it has the bothe the printing press, and a rail system. Both inventures arecharacteristic of the beginning of the industrial age on Earth.
Alpha_Moose 09-11-06, 10:22 PM	One thing to note is that most of Eberron has a Monarchy. Even if they have technological/magical advances simular to our renaissance/industrial age it doesn't mean that their law system is just as advanced/fair. Even if they have a pretty advanced system it doesn't mean that their laws are the same as ours. In many countries or states there are laws against carrying weapons in open public, but you can carry around a wand/staff that can destroy a small building in Sharn (I think). In the end it's a matter of personal taste.
Shady314 09-12-06, 08:01 AM	The thing that makes ZoT superior to our lie detectors is there are no false positives. The reason we don't allow lie detectors as factual evidence is that you can tell the truth and be detected as lying. ZoT while imperfect is much more reliable than a lie detector. In our world two people could take a lie detector test and the honest one can be detected as lying while the lying one can pass as honest. This can't happen with a ZoT. In a worst case scenario a victim and perpetrator tell conflicting stories and are questioned repeatedly until the liar is caught which he always would be. Eventually he will roll a 1. The honest man has nothing to fear from the ZoT. This is usually done through the Eye of Aureon so they just need to stand on it for 14 minutes again or even more easily leave the circle and walk back into it. Add in that this is usually used through an Eye of Aureon (pg. 169 S:CoT) which has a will save DC of 20 which in a world full of low level commoners is not easily defeated. Imagine if when we swore witness' in on the stand with the bible that actually did something. That is what ZoT is equivalent too. Taking that into consideration what harm exactly is there in using it? I'd go so far as to say if we had a lie detector this sophisticated we would use it in court. The Eye is rare anyways and only exists in the greatest courthouses of Khorvaire so it's not like you have to take this into consideration every time even a small crime is commited. It's mainly there to make sure even the PCs can be caught and convicted and will always have to respect the law. As for the level of Eberron's society don't even try to guess it. There are no real world parrallels to it. It is a purely fantasy setting with a hodgepodge of elements from the iron age, medieval era, rennaisance, industrial age and even the modern age. Heck it has elements of the prehistoric era (dinosaurs) for goodness sake.
Kreistor1 09-12-06, 10:19 AM	How does your legal system handle spells like Reincarnate? It is a 4th level spell , fairly readily available in Eberron one would think , even if not common. Someone commits a murder. The murderer has pre-arranged to be reincarnated. The entirely new body has commited no crime. Is there a legal definition of The Soul in the Code you use? The body that committed the crime is destroyed. How would such a case be resolved? Well, most criminals aren't trusting enough to believe that once they are dead, the caster isn't just going to leave them dead and split with the cash. I assume that you'd just respond that this would be some kind of organization. In this case, though, the killer might actually get away with it. There's no way to prove the reincarnated person, who now is of a completely different species, is the criminal. The only person that can positiviely identify the criminal is the caster. Anyone that reincarnates, transforms, or otherwise renders a suspect permanently unidentifiable is a conspirator in the crime, and therefore can be punished as though he had committed the crime himself. So, the caster, by hiding the criminal, gets to spend years in jail (or hang). Now, I'm not going to go through the exercise of trying to work the whole thing out after that point. The caster can provide the new identity. I don't think it matters whether the soul exists or not. People die on the table in our world, and seconds later are brought back. The prosecution can prove and identify the effects of reincarnation on the stand: and that doesn't need to include the words "the Soul", just the mind and memory. That would probably put the new form in jail. But if not, the caster is going to jail for the crime, so there is justice both ways: at worst, the original criminal is dead, and the caster that set an abomination free on the world is also going to jail.
Ravenscroft 09-12-06, 11:54 AM	In this case, though, the killer might actually get away with it. There's no way to prove the reincarnated person, who now is of a completely different species, is the criminal. The only person that can positiviely identify the criminal is the caster. Anyone that reincarnates, transforms, or otherwise renders a suspect permanently unidentifiable is a conspirator in the crime, and therefore can be punished as though he had committed the crime himself. So, the caster, by hiding the criminal, gets to spend years in jail (or hang). Now, I'm not going to go through the exercise of trying to work the whole thing out after that point. The caster can provide the new identity. I don't think it matters whether the soul exists or not. People die on the table in our world, and seconds later are brought back. The prosecution can prove and identify the effects of reincarnation on the stand: and that doesn't need to include the words "the Soul", just the mind and memory. That would probably put the new form in jail. But if not, the caster is going to jail for the crime, so there is justice both ways: at worst, the original criminal is dead, and the caster that set an abomination free on the world is also going to jail. But even with my limited knowledge , say that a real world murderer was extensively made-over by a plastic surgeon (allowing for the months this would take) The surgeon is complicit in covering up a crime or helping a fugitive evade justice (provided he knew about the crime) but is he guilty of murder , and would be executed instead , i have never heard of this happening. Same with Reincarnate. It could easily be a scroll (stolen even , much like guns or cars used in crimes). The person using the scroll is therefore guilty instead (or as well as) seems somehow wrong.
Kreistor1 09-12-06, 02:08 PM	The surgeon is complicit in covering up a crime or helping a fugitive evade justice (provided he knew about the crime) It depends on the timing. The presented event was one where the murderer set the reincarnation up in preparation to commit murder, in which case the doctor is part of the original crime. That makes him guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Murder. The punishment for Conspiracy is that of the Crime you conspired to commit, so the caster is guilty of Conspiracy, but the punishment is drawn from Murder. If the Reincarnation takes place afterwards and is inspired only by the fact the murderer failed to get away with the crime, the caster was not part of the original crime. In this case, he is Aiding and Abetting a fugitive. It is not reasonable to think if someone walks up and says, "Okay, here's a load of cash. I am going to kill myself now. I am paying you to cast Reincarnate on me. Urrrgle..." that he is guaranteed to not be a criminal. So, be wary about casting such a spell: a background check is probably a very safe bet.
Seghan 09-13-06, 12:42 PM	Just to weigh back in with my 2cp, I like the idea of keeping ZoT. It is mentioned pretty prominently in S:CoT, a source I would like to adhere to. And I have no problem imagining magical evidence as admissible in a world where magic has been an integral part of the construction of culture since the inception really. Reading through this thread, however, provides a lot of food for thought in terms of the use and admissiblity of other magical evidence, and I'm sure I can get a lot out of this discussion to through up a ton of legal hurdles for my police/prosecutorial protaganists in traditional Law and Order fashion. This has been a pretty awsome discussion overall, I think.