Post/Author/DateTime	Post
oli_eberron 10-22-07, 06:22 AM	Would magical evidence, such as Discern Lies or Zone of Truth, be admissible in a murder trial in Eberron? :confused:
Ryuu_Tenshi 10-22-07, 06:48 AM	I don't see why not. heck, they probably use the things in the courtroom.
oli_eberron 10-22-07, 10:10 AM	Hmmm... a plot point in my campaign depends on having someone wrongly convicted, but it seems silly in a world where trials would feasibly have infallible magic lie detectors... Whilst it's perfectly feasible (and sensible) for someone plotwise to frame him and corrupt the evidence, are there any spells that could easily do that? :confused:
Rechan 10-22-07, 10:49 AM	DONK DONK. Look at Sharn: CoT pg 169 - Sharn Courthouses have an Eye of Aureon, which is a permanent Zone of Truth. Hmmm... a plot point in my campaign depends on having someone wrongly convicted, but it seems silly in a world where trials would feasibly have infallible magic lie detectors... Except that Zone of Truth and Discern Lies aren't infallible. Discern Lies requires a saving throw. You don't know if your target failed the saving throw. And, as the spell says, "The spell does not reveal the truth, uncover unintentional inaccuracies, or necessarily reveal evasions." Zone of Truth has the same issue. So a character with a hefty will save (Basically, any spellcaster really), has a good chance of making that save and lieing through their teeth. Honestly, I'd be more concerned with someone in the courtroom with a Maxed out Sense Motive (and feats allowing them to maximize this) watching someone try to lie (bluff) on the stand. Hell, just taking 10 on the sense motive check would be real hard.
Hellcow 10-22-07, 12:37 PM	Except that Zone of Truth and Discern Lies aren't infallible. This is the key. Not every town can afford an Eye of Aureon, but even in Sharn they know that you MIGHT still be lying even though you're standing on the Eye. Where it is available, magic is used, but inquisitives aren't going to simply drop the case just because the guy says "I didn't do it!" on the Eye. He might have subtle defensive magics, strong will, or there could be other trickery at work. Of course, that's Sharn. Depending on the location, there may not be anyone around who can cast those spells - remember, Khorvaire has widespread use of magic, but relatively low-level population. I'll also take this opportunity to plug Crime & Punishment (http://www.atlas-games.com/product_tables/AG3223.php), a sourcebook I wrote for Atlas Games just before Eberron - there's a lot of material in here that I feel works well in Eberron.
Kreistor2 10-22-07, 01:33 PM	Most people I talk to feel that any invasion of their mind is a gross violation of personal liberty. If a Constitution allowed such a thing, and I don't think the US or Canadian Constitutions would, then society would ultimately demand an end to such things, in the form of revolution if necessary. I can't see a society that allowed such magical effects to be used indiscriminately to be considered anything except grossly oppressive. Using it to prove the veracity of a witness' statements in court is one thing, I can see that, but on the street by an investigator? No chance. Everyone in the nation would feel a horror that the cop might stop them and learn they had double parked last week, or smoked pot ten years ago. No one can accept living in such a society for a long period, unless it is dictatorial and recognizably oppressive. The interests of justice do not exceed the interests of the individual, if the people are going to tear down the courthouses in protest.
Nived 10-22-07, 01:43 PM	But Karrnath, which is under Martial Law you would expect there to be a great deal less personal liberty. Out after cerfew? If you get caught you might end up tied to a chair in a back room with a strange mage tearing through your mind to find out what you were doing.
Hellcow 10-22-07, 02:13 PM	Most people I talk to feel that any invasion of their mind is a gross violation of personal liberty. And I feel that they are right to do so. Hence, the Code of Galifar doesn't advocate the use of, for example, detect thoughts in the courtroom. However, I personally see a vast difference between something that reads your mind... and something that compels you to be honest. In the US legal system, you take an oath to tell the truth. I expect the same thing to be true in any courtroom in Galifar. In our world, you take that oath by placing your hand on a holy book - something that, ideally, has the power to compel you to fulfil your oath. The Eye of Aureon is the Eberron equivalent of this: something with both magical and, for that matter, religious significance, which simply compels you to fulfil the oath you have taken. Personally, I don't consider Zone of Truth to be an invasion of privacy. I'm not looking into your mind: I am demanding that you be honest in your answers. Your mileage will vary, but one of the central themes of Eberron is "how would the magic of D&D affect a society" - and discern lies is one of those things I feel would be used. Detect thoughts and more serious thoughts of direct mental probing? Not so much. But for me, the Eye is the equivalent of taking the oath on the bible: You stand beneath the Eye of Aureon, and you are compelled to speak the truth to the justice. Again, it's all about what you want from the world. You can decide that even discern lies and zone of truth are violations of privacy. But I want a world where magic is part of life... where an oath in court has meaning, because it's a world where that oath has mystic power. That's the sort of thing I want to see from Eberron: magic used in communication, entertainment, justice, warfare, and more. I can certainly see Kreistor2's viewpoint, but as Sharn shows, it's not the path I'd take.
Hellcow 10-22-07, 02:14 PM	But Karrnath, which is under Martial Law you would expect there to be a great deal less personal liberty. And yes, i would expect the Code of Kaius to be more free with use of things like detect thoughts in pursuit of justice.
Gurv 10-22-07, 03:07 PM	I'll also take this opportunity to plug Crime & Punishment (http://www.atlas-games.com/product_tables/AG3223.php), a sourcebook I wrote for Atlas Games just before Eberron - there's a lot of material in here that I feel works well in Eberron. I just picked up Crime & Punishment myself, and I can say that it's worth taking a look at. Although it isn't Eberron specific, it does delve deeply into the effects of using magic to investigate and prosecute crime. As with most things with Keith's name on the front, there is plenty of fluff content, along with enough prestige classes, spells, and magic items to add crunch. Essentially though, crime and punishment is an "arms war". Just like in the real world, criminals are finding new ways to get away with things, while law enforcement is finding new ways to catch them. I imagine that, in the case of zone of truth, it works the way a lie detector works in RL. Alone, it isn't enough to convict someone or to drop charges against them. You still need evidence. But what someone says on the Eye of Aureon definitely counts for something. Some nations might find detect thoughts too invasive, while others figure that the innocent have nothing to hide. I don't think the results of a detect thoughts spell would be submitted as evidence in a courtroom. Rather, an inquisitor might read the mind of an alleged murderer to learn where he hid the bodies. Using the spell to find evidence, not using the spell's results as evidence. One of the major problems with most of the spells in question (which C&P also points out) is that they reveal their information only to the caster. This means that even if you have an "expert witness" who can read minds, you still have to trust the caster to be unbiased. Anyone can wiggle their fingers at someone and claim to read his mind. And even legitimate casters can take bribes. In order for magic to be trusted, the magic users must be trusted. Yet another problem comes from the fact that anything that can really be done with magic can also be faked with magic. Nondetection and misdirection aside, illusions can make almost anything happen. A corrupt guard could allow a changeling to switch places with a criminal just before he steps on the Eye, allowing him to honestly claim to be innocent of the crime in question. While I might claim to casting zone of truth, how many people in the courtroom would know the difference if I instead cast suggestion in order to solicit a confession? As Keith was fond of saying back when Eberron's wide magic was being discussed: magic often causes just as many problems as it creates. While that doesn't mean that magic doesn't help, it does mean that you can't just wave your hand at a problem and expect it to be solved.
Egres 10-22-07, 05:16 PM	In the US legal system, you take an oath to tell the truth. I expect the same thing to be true in any courtroom in Galifar. But if you don't like it, just switch on a more "civil law" Galifar code, based on the "nemo tenetur se detegere" principle.
Darth Syntax 10-22-07, 07:46 PM	A lot has been made about the ability of someone to 'beat' these various divinations, and rightly so. However, there is also the issue of a false positive where in detect lies registers a lie when there is no actual falsehood. A witness might simply misremember and thus technically 'lie' which would greatly alter the understanding of the case. I'm sure there are other situations wherein a lie would be detected where no lie has occurred which might make the admissibility of such evidence questionable.
Hellcow 10-22-07, 09:14 PM	I imagine that, in the case of zone of truth, it works the way a lie detector works in RL. Alone, it isn't enough to convict someone or to drop charges against them. You still need evidence. But what someone says on the Eye of Aureon definitely counts for something. Certainly. The Eye isn't an assurance of honesty; everyone knows that it's possible for a strong-willed person to resist the magic and lie. Therefore the magic alone can't be taken as evidence; it's simply a layer of protection against perjury. As I said before, I see it as being similar to taking an oath; it simply happens that in Eberron those oaths actually have literal meaning. If you're not prepared to stand before the justice and speak the truth, then you've got a problem; perjury is a crime. The Eye can't force you to answer, and it can't pluck thoughts from your mind. But it will make it difficult for you to answer dishonestly. Again, YMMV; one of the subjects C&P specifically addresses is the degree to which a society will incorporate magic into its legal system. But I see Galifar as being willing to use discern lies to hinder perjury, Karrnath being willing to use more invasive measures where national security is concerned, and Riedra certainly allowing full telepathic interrogation to be used on suspects. One of the major problems with most of the spells in question (which C&P also points out) is that they reveal their information only to the caster. Absolutely. Zone of Truth only works because the speaker must tell the truth to everyone... assuming he's affected by the spell, and that's something people can't take for granted. Discern lies only tells YOU the suspect is lying - but that's not proof for a jury. Unless you have someone whose moral authority is considered unimpeachable, discern lies isn't much use in court. With that said, in some communities you might find such people. Someone capable of performing discern lies would be a 7th+ level cleric or a very high level paladin (or, looking again to C&P, an expert with inquisitor levels). In Thrane, such a cleric might be the community leader as well as its chief justice, and could be both trusted and expected to use such magic in the pursuit of justice. In other places, a high-level cleric of Aureon with a long residence in the community might be trusted to serve as a truth-teller for important matters. However, it's still a limited tool that can be beaten in many ways. A justice might use it as a tool during questioning, but evidence, Sense Motive, and all the other elements of the case are still going to matter; you just might have the justice snap "Don't lie to me, boy" when you try to cover up your little fling in Thrane. On the other hand, in Riedra, I expect the Inspired to use the full array of telepathic abilities to interrogate prisoners and to consider information gathered in this way to be entirely sufficient for conviction.
Ryuu_Tenshi 10-22-07, 11:49 PM	The real question is, how do you stat out Phoenix Wright in Eberron?
oli_eberron 10-23-07, 08:59 AM	Thanks to everyone who contributed, especially Keith! My campaign is going to begin with one of the characters escaping jail in a homage to the Bogart/Bacall noir Dark Passage, so I wanted to make sure it made sense for an innocent man to be behind bars in the first place. Cheers, Oli.
Kreistor2 10-23-07, 10:18 AM	Absolutely. Zone of Truth only works because the speaker must tell the truth to everyone... assuming he's affected by the spell, and that's something people can't take for granted. Okay, here's a minor fault I have to point out. Someone that fails to resist the effect has a magical aura attached to them, and it is detectable by Detect Magic, a lowly 0-level spell. A successful resist prevents that aura from attaching to the target. Even Detect Lies targets the subject and results in an aura attached to the target. So, yes, it is very easy and cheap to tell that someone is or is not affected by these spells. It is very easy to tell if a subject has been affected by any spell of any sort, if you want to. So, no, I don't agree that determining a subject is affected by the spell is very difficult at all.
Hellcow 10-23-07, 02:12 PM	Okay, here's a minor fault I have to point out. Someone that fails to resist the effect has a magical aura attached to them, and it is detectable by Detect Magic, a lowly 0-level spell. Perhaps. That's not how I personally play a spell like Zone of Truth. I set up the aura in the area of effect. Someone who enters the area of effect is now standing within that aura. I personally do not create a SECOND aura for them if they fail their saving throw; the aura is the zone itself, and it doesn't propagate. You can certainly decide that it does propagate - that the effect of the zone is the place a new magical effect on anyone that enters, and that this effect simply fades the instant they leave it. I see your logic; someone affected by the spell is clearly under the influence of magic and should thus have an aura. Perhaps there's even an official rule about this somewhere. But it's not how I've ever played it; it's not how I feel obligated to play it from looking at the spell; and it makes the spell far less useful within the game - since I WANT the ability for doubt. When all evidence points to the innocent man, I don't want him to be able to say "I didn't do it" and have them say "He's got a magic aura - he must be telling the truth." I want them to feel that his lies on the Eye prove that he's even worse than they thought, because he can overcome its magic. So, I play the zone as a single aura confined to the zone. Someone detecting will recognize that a person is standing within that aura, but not whether they are affected by it. I'll continue to play it that way even if there's an official rule stating otherwise, because it makes a better story for me... and that's what I care about.
Gurv 10-23-07, 02:38 PM	It is very easy to tell if a subject has been affected by any spell of any sort, if you want to. So, no, I don't agree that determining a subject is affected by the spell is very difficult at all. I agree with Keith's call. A zone of truth spell doesn't target a creature in the first place, it's an emanation. Even if it left a lingering aura on those who entered it, I don't think it would be possible to tell whether the subject passed or failed the save (especially since this particular spell ceases to function when you leave the AoO). Certainly, the actual aura from the emanation would overwhelm any trace aura clinging to a creature within. Furthermore, introducing a spellcaster into the mix to cast detect magic doesn't make things any more clear to a jury. Now you have to trust the mage's word that the zone is working. Interesting thought: since zone of truth is an emanation, it can be blocked. If you can somehow get full cover from the point of origin, it can't affect you. I'm sure a courtroom would make sure that couldn't happen, but it's am idea.
Macrovore 10-23-07, 02:41 PM	On the other hand, in Riedra, I expect the Inspired to use the full array of telepathic abilities to interrogate prisoners and to consider information gathered in this way to be entirely sufficient for conviction. and, usually, the punishment is "reprogramming." *shudder*
Kreistor2 10-23-07, 05:58 PM	I agree with Keith's call. A zone of truth spell doesn't target a creature in the first place, it's an emanation. Even if it left a lingering aura on those who entered it, I don't think it would be possible to tell whether the subject passed or failed the save (especially since this particular spell ceases to function when you leave the AoO). Certainly, the actual aura from the emanation would overwhelm any trace aura clinging to a creature within. You do realize that ZoT is an Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-affecting], right? It really does invade your own mind. Detect Lies is Divination, on the other hand. I can't see any effect that invades someone's mind as lacking an aura on that person.
Hellcow 10-24-07, 01:38 PM	You do realize that ZoT is an Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-affecting], right? It really does invade your own mind. It compels you to act in a certain manner while you remain within the boundaries of the emanation, yes. You appear to see it as a propagating magical effect that places a secondary aura on anyone who enters the emanation and falls under its effect. I understand your point of view and the logic behind it. However, I see it as an emanation that compels anyone within its area of effect to behave in a certain manner; as soon as they step outside the emanation, they are no longer at risk. In my opinion, it doesn't create a propagating aura; it's just a question of whether I am standing in the midst of the aura yet resisting its effects. The emanation itself is the source of the compulsion, and the question is if I have the strength of will to resist it; it doesn't try to infect me with a viral enchantment that I somehow fight off. The magic is all around me, and detect magic will reveal that I am standing IN an aura; but it's that aura that compels me, not a secondary aura placed within me. And this is why the effect ends the instant I leave the emanation. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind. I understand your interpretation. But it's not the one I'd use, nor is it the assumption that the Sharn sourcebook is based on (bear in mind that according to the sourcebook, the courtrooms are in fact monitored using pendants of mystical warning - the sourcebook says that these are used to detect use of magic, but says nothing about using them to see whether the witness has resited the Eye). Ultimately, it comes to story. Especially with 4E on the horizon and the rules for magic being suddenly up in the air, what matters to me is the story, not the precise interpretation of rules... because rules can (and will) change. The intention of S:CoT is that the Eye is a tool - that magic is used to help the pursuit of justice - but that it is not infalliable, and that as a result injustice can still occur, people can be framed, witness statements can bein doubt. I see the basis for your interpretation, but as I said, I've honestly never thought of running the spell that way before... and even if the Sage knocked on my door to say it's the official ruling, I wouldn't run it that way in my campaign, because it hurts the story. And in my opinion the story should always come first.
Kreistor2 10-25-07, 12:04 AM	The magic is all around me, and detect magic will reveal that I am standing IN an aura; but it's that aura that compels me, not a secondary aura placed within me. And this is why the effect ends the instant I leave the emanation. Hey, don't get me wrong, I don't say that my way is the only way. My own way is far more complex than I've suggested: this was just my protest that magical auras aren't that hard to detect, which seems overlooked in the Coreas well as the settings (plural, not just yours).
Smug 10-25-07, 01:34 AM	This was just my protest that magical auras aren't that hard to detect, which seems overlooked in the Core... Everything here hinges on the definition of "functioning spell". Detect magic detects magical auras. Two things are listed as having an aura; a functioning spell and a magic item. As I read it, the "functioning spell" in question is Zone of Truth, a magical emanation that affects a 20-foot radius. Given that it's an emanation with a duration, I don't think there's any question that the zone itself would count. IMO, being affected by the zone while standing within its radius is like having your shirt catch on fire while you're standing in a wall of flame. The zone is the magical effect; step out of it and you're safe. It's possible to interpret "functioning spell" as "any isolated effect of a spell", but in my opinion a better word for that would be "spell effect". If I look in a room and say "What spells are functioning in the room", Zone of Truth would be a single spell and thus a single aura - not a litter of li'l spells, newly spawned every time someone crosses the boundary. I don't think anyone is arguing that magical auras are hard to detect. The Sharn sourcebook says that there's someone on hand in the courtroom detecting magical auras. I think what's being challenged is precisely what things generate a magical aura... specifically, whether failing your saving throw in this case generates a unique aura. If I use Detect Thoughts on you, you get a saving throw to resist, just like you can save against ZoT... but if you fail, I don't believe that I place a magic aura on you for the duration of the time that I'm detecting your thoughts. And I don't accept the argument that one's a compulsion and the other divination; you are allowed a Will saving throw against both effects (implying that detect thoughts isn't entirely passive) and both affect you for a period of time. With Detect Thoughts, the aura is an emanation based on me; with ZoT it's an emanation based on the targeted area of the spell. So I don't think the core ignores it. I just think that it hangs on the interpretation of "functioning spell" - and people on the thread have different ideas about this.
Kreistor2 10-25-07, 11:56 AM	So I don't think the core ignores it. I just think that it hangs on the interpretation of "functioning spell" - and people on the thread have different ideas about this. And those different ideas are what cause all the arguments. The rules lack specification. The designers made broad sweeping assumptions that they felt were obvious. Here's an example: is the Illusion aura created by Invisibility invisible? It's obvious that it must be, but it doesn't say that it is. Is it intended that Detect Magic can see the aura of an Invisibility spell? I can't read a designer's mind, so I can't say for certain. And if you don't like Invisibility as the example, what about the entire Illusion school? Does Permanent Arcane Sight defeat every Illusion in the game, because the Illusion aura is obvious? Or do you give the Illusion school an unwritten benefit of hiding its own auras? Like I said: we're having an argument about this, because the rules are unclear. 4.0 needs to inject that clarity, or it solves nothing. More rules with weak descriptions based on assumption and incomplete understanding of the interactions of magic don't help us as the DM's. We're the ones that have to make the arguments at the table, not the designers, and designing a system that increases arguments does not simplify the game. Simplification is one of the goals,an part of that is reducing the capacity for players to misinterpret what is intended. State what is intended, don't hope that everyone else can figure it out.
TiwazTyrsfist 10-25-07, 05:01 PM	So, Here's a way to get a character 'wrongly convicted' in a setting where magic is used to facilitate the court proceedings. You simply need a moderately high level magic-user or Psion(Telepath) as a Nemesis for the character. The Nemesis uses his powers to plant the ideas that A> the PC is powerful enough to resist the spells, and B> clearly guilty and lying, in the mind or minds of the person or people who decide the verdict. Combined with falsified evidence, it's likely he'll get shipped off to dreadhold, and never heard from again. Juror 1: He says he's innocent. And you know the Zone of Truth should prevent him lying. Juror 2: Bah, he's a wizard, he probably has some dark magic protecting him from it. Besides look at the evidence, the murder weapon is his by his own admittance. The Witnesses all saw him. Juror 1: You're right... Just look at him, sitting there all smug. How anyone who did something so vicious and gruesome can look so calm I don't know. Juror 2: And lying to the court, just as calm as you please. He's a monster, that's for sure...
Kreistor2 10-25-07, 06:14 PM	It doesn't take magic. All it takes is for uninformed common folk to turn off their brains and rely on the available machine. You see, that make the person blameless if something goes wrong. They can blame the machine, and walk out with a clear conscience, no matter what happens.