New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 131
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SangoProduction's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    Note to self: in case of accident, don't raise TalonOfAnathrax.
    lol. Probably getting too close to RL here, but I recall that there was an incident where someone who gave CPR to someone actually had a sexual assault lawsuit thrown against them. This reply reminds me of the reaction to that story.
    Last edited by SangoProduction; 2018-04-15 at 05:29 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by SangoProduction View Post
    lol. Probably getting too close to RL here, but I recall that there was an incident where someone who gave CPR to someone actually had a sexual assault lawsuit thrown against them. This reply reminds me of the reaction to that story.
    There are so-called "Good Samaritan" laws in some places to prevent that sort of thing.

    Those sorts of laws might not exist in a medieval setting, so you might be liable for damages caused by your attempt to help the plaintiff.

    If you want to play a very cynical, unsympathetic, and depressingly mercenary game, that might be exactly the sort of setting ingredient that would help implicitly influence PC actions.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    A simple right to privacy or protection from being compelled to testify against yourself would make such methods suspect at best even if they were infallible simply because the caster is -not- infallible.

    Again, because I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle, I'm -not- saying these spells should never be used as part of legal proceedings. I'm saying that they shouldn't be given undue weight when they are.
    Why would a fantasy court have a right against self incrimination? The only reason WE have it is to avoid placing a criminal in the “cruel trifecta” in which a guilty person, faced with the possibility of punishment if they testify truthfully or refuse to testify, could endanger their immortal soul by committing perjury thus making the court complicit in their damnation. Since 1. Committing perjury doesn’t seem to matter much in the D&D afterlife and 2. If you could force them to testify truthfully or put them in a position in which their lies would be detected the cruel trifecta doesn’t arrive, there is no good reason why they would enshrine a right against self incrimination.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    Assuming that the system doesn't work because an official will become corrupt will cause any system to work poorly. What if the King is corrupt? What if the President is corrupt? We have external checks for these things.
    The same is true of presuming it won't be corrupted at all. Corruption -inevitably- creeps into every system. That's why it's important to take measures designed to mitigate and reverse corruption. What -if- the king is corrupt? That's why you have a coalition of court nobles doing what they can to keep his power in check rather than let him have absolute, uncontested reign.

    In this case, use the spells but be skeptical of the results and don't just condemn the target outright because he made a save.


    An easy example is making the person casting discern lies the Judge. The Judge isn't the only source of truth in the world, and if he regularly sabotages cases he's still responsible to the rest of the court system at large. That doesn't mean that he doesn't wield considerable influence within his own courtroom, though.
    Now you're talking theocracy. Discern lies is simply not available to any non-divine caster and is 3rd level at its lowest. You'd have to occupy the benches of every court in the system with 5th level or higher clerics, archivists, etc or reserve it for only high-profile cases, in which case you have to have a system that doesn't demand the spell.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlacKnight View Post
    Well those spells are problematic because it's not clear if language is objective. But if it's not then they are useless and I don't think that the designer made those as waste space. Thus language has to be objective in D&D settings, and the only ways out are those described... which are basically none.
    Holy crap, no. Language can be used in an objective way but it's nothing approaching objective on the whole, not even close. Just look at the sheer variety of English dialects for an easy example. Colloquialisms, broader idioms, slang; language is -not- objective at all.

    It goes without saying that law men should be good at formulating their questions, but probably they would use standard qustions slighty altered for the specific case.
    Easier said than done. Cases can vary pretty widely, especially if there's any significant complexity to the law itself.

    The way I would design a trial is: the judge interrogate freely the defendant and they conclude on a version of the facts. Then they decide on the questions. After that the caster (or 2 casters if possible) is called and the defendant has to answer the questions under ZoT or Detect Lies (in the case of ZoT maybe it will be repeated multiple times to be sure). If everything goes well the version of the facts becomes judicial truth and the judge makes his decision.
    That's.... horrifying. You realize that, although not in this case, people can have different recollections of events without anyone knowingly lying about any of it? That's before you even consider the idea of people's minds being magically screwed with or defenses being mounted against the lie-detection/prevention magic or trying to manipulate the judge either magically or otherwise? There's a reason the idea of a jury was created.


    If the defendant doesn't collaborate of lies... bad for him, because such a system greatly helps the innocents and those who collaborate.
    I'm having trouble parsing this. I -think- you're saying that a lack of cooperation from the defendant looks bad. However, being subjected to compulsory effects and/ or mind-reading magic is a pretty gross personal violation if the target -is- innocent, something you -cannot- know beforehand. As for the system you've proposed helping the innocent, it's not flawless. It -will- railroad some innocents, unavoidably. Sooner or later a judge will make an error in judgement, even barring corruption or outside interference, that convicts a person who is not guilty. It's flat-out not a question of "if" but of "when" and "how often."

    About unclear answers can you explain how the two that I provided as example in my previous post are unclear ? Just to discuss the issue with a practical example.
    This case is pretty straight-forward. There's only one version of events to get a gauge on (barring speak with dead) and the defendant, presumably, hasn't committed any other crimes within this jurisdiction and/or isn't a spy for a foreign nation, member of an criminal organization, or in possession of any other personal or state secrets of greater impact than the death of this lady of the evening. As such, I don't think there's any reason for him to want or need to lie.

    You don't base a system on the best-case scenario of everyone involved being entirely on-board and cooperative at every stage of progression. You presume it will be resisted and/ or have a chance of failure at every stage and design it to work in spite of such factors.

    As an example to help clarify though; see my previous example of evading. If it's instead the bailiff/judge/whatever asking the rogue involved in the heist, "did you take the jewels from the vault" with the restriction of answering either "yes" or "no" the rogue can -still- answer either "yes" or "no" without lying; "yes," he was part of the group that took the jewels or "no," he did not take the jewels from the vault personally.

    Very specific, careful phrasing -can- help to avoid this but it can also confuse the person being questioned and that's not helpful at all.



    Medieval trials were terrible and while D&D settings are varied they are generally dangerous places, so I wouldn't count on having 1st world justice as comparison.
    Testimony against yourself can look bad today, but would you prefer torture or trial by combat ?
    And you shouldn't underestimate the appeal of the argument "innocent people will never been convicted with this system".
    Granted there is the corruption problem, but that's not solved by other systems.
    You say that the caster could lie and condemn the convict. But in a standard trial the judge could still condemn basing on anything. And if they have multiple casters the problem would be greatly reduced.
    Let's take the case in exam. What should the judge do ? It seem like standard homicide. But the PC could ask for the Disguise Lies. If the caster is honest he could get a reduced punishment. If not he gets condemned, but that was a given either way.
    I'm well aware but we seem to be presuming something fairly modern for this exercise for the moment. It's not at all out of the question that the rogue could be subjected to any of a number of inferior systems that will railroad him toward a terrible fate but there's not much for us to discuss if that's the case since evidence might not matter at all in that case.

    It could be that they use an entirely testimonial system wherein the most important thing would be the ability to get more people to speak glowingly on his behalf than there are people who are upset about the death of the victim. Obviously, getting word to his party becomes top-priority in that case. It's a whole lot less nuanced and doesn't make much of a discussion though, does it?
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2016

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    It probably would not be an effective defense. The particular laws in effect would certainly matter here, but given the number of spells out there that aren't offensive, I think it would probably take testimony from at least one witness in good standing who was not only there, but capable of the Spellcraft check necessary to identify the spell she was casting. Assuming the rogue is questioned under one of the variety of ways to compel him to speak truthfully, he's probably looking at the local equivalent of manslaughter charges, since he didn't go there intending to kill the prostitute, but still definitely jumped the gun on this. He might have a chance at avoiding prison if she has nearby kin who might accept a blood price, and if the municipality is willing to consider a fine and banishment (either or both possibly mitigated if he's been of service to someone with authority) in lieu of a prison sentence.
    If something I've said can be construed in more than one way, there's a better than average chance that I meant it in the least offensive of the options.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    On the issue of the trial, this is all based on the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. It's more likely to be "guilty until proven innocent." They aren't going to bother to use divinations if they think you're guilty. You are going to use divinations. Or not, if you don't want to.

    But the presence of divinations is a flat out boon to the accused, because he's already guilty so divinations cannot hurt him more. The bad news is that the accused is probably going to have to pay for any out of his own pocket. The really bad news is that this is going to be horribly corrupt and anyone wealthy enough is going to find some "respectable" auger to tell the court that yup, the accused opened up his mind and his memories are clean and the spirits said the silver-born man did the dead. Who's the silver-born man? The spirits are vague, but it's obviously not the accused.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Casting a spell is not an attack on him. He would need to show (under the modern U.S. law system) a reasonable cause for believing he was threatened.

    "She was casting a spell" is not that. But "she was casting a spell and is known to have attacked strangers with magic" might be, if he can demonstrate it.

    And there's no reason to believe the courts take a modern approach.

    But the truth is that he had no reason to believe he was threatened, and he is in fact a murderer. What he needs is for a cleric friends to show up and raise her at his cost. That might be taken as evidence to indicate that he didn't want her dead, and that the death was an accident.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrayDeath View Post
    Wow, take a deep breath.

    Once she is raised, she is no longer dead. Hence he cannot be (assuming more or less "regular fantasy laws") be accused of murder, especially since she can clarify that yes, she did cast a spell, and he can clarify that no, he did not intend to kill her butr simply overreacted.
    To quote The Patrician of Ankh-Morpork: Discworld:

    "If it takes an Igor to bring you back, you were dead. Briefly dead, true, which is why the murderer will be briefly hanged".
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    first, what is the common perception of magic in the setting? I can very easily see a setting where the only sane response to seeing someone cast a spell is to strike them down for fear of curse or fireball, because those are the only spells that a common person would know about. I have played in campaigns were if an unknown entity started casting, you killed them before they could finish, or you were finished.
    you should note that this was an earlier edition with a DM who believed that if you were not a wizard you knew jack about magic and how it worked, end of discussion (clerics did not need to understand anything beyond pray, and get magic, therefore did not).
    Still would have skipped town, and never came back to it.
    the first half of the meaning of life is that there isn't one.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Milford, OH
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elkad View Post
    Reasonable? No.

    Plausible? Maybe. Especially if he could provide some (fake?) intent on her part. "I asked her for the money she owed me (or demanded a refund), and she threatened me, and then started casting something."
    But Detect Lies (or Speak with Dead) can unravel that in a hurry.

    Just the act of "using magic" doesn't mean it's a weapon any more than "using a knife" means I was going to stab you.
    I could easily be taking it out of my pocket to cut my apple, or open a box, or sharpen it.

    I'd imagine providing "fake" evidence in a court of law of D&D wouldn't work well since they'd probably have someone Zone of Truth him rather than swear on the Bible if you get my meaning.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    To quote The Patrician of Ankh-Morpork: Discworld:

    "If it takes an Igor to bring you back, you were dead. Briefly dead, true, which is why the murderer will be briefly hanged".
    Vetinari has so many good quotes. Too bad we won't get any new ones from him.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    we're going through a lot of semantics and crunch here, when the solution to OP's problem lies in the setting.
    Places like Cormyr or the aforementioned area in Shining South, "She's a Witch" is enough of a defence to get you off free and clear.

    What setting are you in? Which city in that setting? We have grognards of all stripes here, if you can name the city and setting we can tell you exactly how much trouble you're in.


    Unless it's the DM's own setting, in which case you're completely at the mercy of *his* idea of justice.
    "You want to see how a Human dies? at ramming speed."

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    Holy crap, no. Language can be used in an objective way but it's nothing approaching objective on the whole, not even close. Just look at the sheer variety of English dialects for an easy example. Colloquialisms, broader idioms, slang; language is -not- objective at all.
    The proble is that if one can say "I think that horse means dog" to avoid lying then the spell is useless.
    The problem is that the truth of a sentence is a human construct, not a physical reality. But the spell to work require it to be an objective reality.
    Is a similar problem to alignment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That's.... horrifying. You realize that, although not in this case, people can have different recollections of events without anyone knowingly lying about any of it? That's before you even consider the idea of people's minds being magically screwed with or defenses being mounted against the lie-detection/prevention magic or trying to manipulate the judge either magically or otherwise? There's a reason the idea of a jury was created.
    Apart from the fact that the jury is a terrible idea (if you want more judges just get more judges, like you should for criminal cases), yes people can have wrong memories, either by nature or magic.
    But the truth spells should be used when you have problematic witnesses, not when things are crystal clear. If you can solve the case without truth spells that's good. Otherwise what's your suggestion ? That the judge decides on his own which witnesses are reliable and which aren't ? That's has a problem: the judge can be corrupt !

    And if the judge, the caster and everybody else is evil or mind controlled the convict is doomed, but that's not a system specific fault.

    I seem to remember that modify memory can be removed, don't know if by dispel magic or remove curse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    I'm having trouble parsing this. I -think- you're saying that a lack of cooperation from the defendant looks bad. However, being subjected to compulsory effects and/ or mind-reading magic is a pretty gross personal violation if the target -is- innocent, something you -cannot- know beforehand. As for the system you've proposed helping the innocent, it's not flawless. It -will- railroad some innocents, unavoidably. Sooner or later a judge will make an error in judgement, even barring corruption or outside interference, that convicts a person who is not guilty. It's flat-out not a question of "if" but of "when" and "how often."
    All systems can condemn innocents. Can you make an example when somebody gets condemned with truth spells but would have been released without ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    As an example to help clarify though; see my previous example of evading. If it's instead the bailiff/judge/whatever asking the rogue involved in the heist, "did you take the jewels from the vault" with the restriction of answering either "yes" or "no" the rogue can -still- answer either "yes" or "no" without lying; "yes," he was part of the group that took the jewels or "no," he did not take the jewels from the vault personally.

    Very specific, careful phrasing -can- help to avoid this but it can also confuse the person being questioned and that's not helpful at all.
    Why do they suspect the rogue of being guilty ? Did they found the jewels on him ? Did they see him fleeing from the vault ?
    Also as I said before the spells shouldn't be used for interrogation, but for confirming a version of the facts. The answers should be determinated before so that the convict agrees on them and knows what to say.
    So if the rogue says that he was sleeping and he wasn't part of the gang they would ask stuff like:"did you entered in the vault that night ?", "do you know/saw somebody who took the jewels from the vault ?", "have you ever left the inn that night ?". If he can say "No, no, no" the entire accusation would fall flat.
    The rogue could even propose some questions.
    And if the judge is corrupt ? Than he's doomed either way.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Earth and/or not-Earth
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlacKnight View Post
    The proble is that if one can say "I think that horse means dog" to avoid lying then the spell is useless.
    The problem is that the truth of a sentence is a human construct, not a physical reality. But the spell to work require it to be an objective reality.
    Is a similar problem to alignment.
    Discern lies doesn't detect whether or not the statement is true. It detects whether or not the speaker is lying. It's entirely possible for the subject to say something that is actually true and have discern lies report the statement as a lie, if the subject incorrectly thinks the statement is false.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    This amounts to allowing the defendant no active defense of his innocence based on the result of the word of a court official who's tool is -known- to be less than infallible. Gaming this would be simplicity itself to would-be corruptors of the system. There's plenty of reason beyond the current case to object to being subjected to magics that poke at your mind as well. A simple right to privacy or protection from being compelled to testify against yourself would make such methods suspect at best even if they were infallible simply because the caster is -not- infallible.
    On one side assuming a medieval setting with medieval trials, on the other assuming modern sensibilities. Of course one has to decide where the setting falls. we can't argue for "trial by ordeal because it is a backward society" and "no magic is used because it infringes privacy".
    In memory of Evisceratus: he dreamed of a better world, but he lacked the class levels to make the dream come true.

    Ridiculous monsters you won't take seriously even as they disembowel you

    my take on the highly skilled professional: the specialized expert

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleBison View Post
    Discern lies doesn't detect whether or not the statement is true. It detects whether or not the speaker is lying. It's entirely possible for the subject to say something that is actually true and have discern lies report the statement as a lie, if the subject incorrectly thinks the statement is false.
    People can believe false stuff even with objective language, it's a totally different issue.

    Now how can someone believe a false statement to be true ?
    He can remeber things in a wrong way, or memories could have been altered with magic.
    If the former nothing can be done, but I suppose people don't forget easily stuff like "I killed X", "I stole from the bank" and similar. "what color was the car" is something that could be remebered wrongly, but it's also something that shouldn't decide a trial.
    If we are talking magic, there are ways around that. A simple dispel magic should work (and you obviously have to dispel the defendant anyway).

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    The way I would do it, in a large city, you make a deal with a lawful god of justice.

    Holding criminals in pretrial, have them (or their council) agree with the opposing council on 1-5 short sentences relating to key disputed facts of the trial. Here, they might be
    I killed the prostitute
    She was casting an unknown spell
    I believed I was in danger.

    Then, on testimony day, you line up the accused between the guards. 3-5 clerics in a line all cast zone of truth spaced out in a hallway. The prisoners walk forward, stand in a certain spot, and state their sentences. Then move forward to the next zone and do it again. Assuming you can say one sentence per round, and you could put 2 prisoners in a zone 20 feet apart and have the guards and witness clearly hear their testimony, properly organized, you should be able to fact check some 6-10 prisoners per ZoT casting (minimum 30 rounds from level 3 casters). If you can’t say your statements in any zone, you fail. Impose a perjury penalty for failure.

    Even someone with a good save might be cautious about trying 5 consecutive Will saves. Make sure the high priest sometimes does a rotation and everyone knows it.

    Is it absolutely foolproof? No. No evidence is. But it’s likely to be more reliable than eyewitness testimony or fingerprints or a lot of other evidence we use. You could even take the experience of the casting clerics into account when weighing the ZoT evidence, like we would with experts.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Necroticplague's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Zone of Truth is a mind-affecting compulsion enchantment. So immunity to it is only slightly less common than air, and frankly trying to be immune to it isn’t even suspicious (since it’s in the same category as Mindrape and Dominate Person).
    Avatar by TinyMushroom.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Necroticplague View Post
    Zone of Truth is a mind-affecting compulsion enchantment. So immunity to it is only slightly less common than air, and frankly trying to be immune to it isn’t even suspicious (since it’s in the same category as Mindrape and Dominate Person).
    Detect magic is a 0 level cantrip. You are a prisoner, deprived of your gear and components and ordered not to buff yourself beforehand. And if it is known or suspected that you are a very high level caster further precautions can be taken. That’s like the difference between how we convict an armed robber at a 7-11 and how we convict an enemy spy. Yeah, a high level caster can likely beat the system. But a high level caster committed the murder from half a continent away and sure never got apprehended by the city watch.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnaeus View Post
    Detect magic is a 0 level cantrip. You are a prisoner, deprived of your gear and components and ordered not to buff yourself beforehand.
    Why? You're guilty, otherwise you wouldn't be a prisoner. It's up to you to prove your innocence. If you are innocent, you should be chomping at the bit to have your mind read and escape the ax. That you aren't is just further proof of your guilt. We're telling the headsman not to be too concerned with the sharpness of his instrument.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Acanous View Post
    we're going through a lot of semantics and crunch here, when the solution to OP's problem lies in the setting.
    Places like Cormyr or the aforementioned area in Shining South, "She's a Witch" is enough of a defence to get you off free and clear.
    Halruaa in the Shining South is a magocracy - all the people holding real political power, are mages.

    Which is probably why they recognise wands as potentially deadly weapons, and "pointing a wand" as something reasonable to treat as a deadly threat - they know exactly how dangerous magic can be - because that's the kingdom's speciality.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Swamplandia

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    It depends. (duh)

    Legal systems in the real world vary wildly in manner of trial, manner of punishment, what crime it would be (or if), or even if charges could be brought.

    Ancient China? Convictions are acceptable only with confession, but you can use torture to extract confessions. Ancient Athens? Only a family member of the woman could bring charges. Modern New York? Almost certainly one would be looking at prosecution for murder (but rape charges explicitly don't apply against prostitutes.) Modern Texas? I doubt one would even be taken to the police station.

    What are the local laws concerning spell casters? Hell it's possibly that not only is the rogue not in trouble but the local wizards guild owes him the bounty on unlicensed spell-casters.
    What are the laws governing self defense?
    What do trials look like? There is no particular need for them to make much sense by our standards. (All defendants regardless of crime must answer the riddles of a Sphinx, those who fail get eaten, those who walk out, are cleared of charges.)

    Too many what ifs, just a bunch of things for the GM to think about.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Necroticplague's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnaeus View Post
    Detect magic is a 0 level cantrip. You are a prisoner, deprived of your gear and components and ordered not to buff yourself beforehand. And if it is known or suspected that you are a very high level caster further precautions can be taken. That’s like the difference between how we convict an armed robber at a 7-11 and how we convict an enemy spy. Yeah, a high level caster can likely beat the system. But a high level caster committed the murder from half a continent away and sure never got apprehended by the city watch.
    I wasn't thinking about spellcasters with their constant Mind Blanks or Protection from Law up. I was thinking of mundane people with such basic things as Deformity: Madness, Sculpt Self, and the Undead or Construct types.
    Avatar by TinyMushroom.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlacKnight View Post
    The proble is that if one can say "I think that horse means dog" to avoid lying then the spell is useless.
    They can't just say they think that. They have to actually think it. That's the difference. The spell, as InvisibleBison points out, doesn't tell you what the actual truth of the matter is. That's not it's purpose. It tells you only whether or not the target is lying. Telling the truth in a misleading way isn't lying. It's certainly deception and a pretty basic misinformation technique but it's -not- speaking a false statement.

    The problem is that the truth of a sentence is a human construct, not a physical reality. But the spell to work require it to be an objective reality
    It not only requires no such thing but even explicitly cautions that the kind of thing I'm describing is one of its weaknesses. Giving spells more power than the rules say they have is part of why GMs resort to unnecessary bans.



    Apart from the fact that the jury is a terrible idea (if you want more judges just get more judges, like you should for criminal cases), yes people can have wrong memories, either by nature or magic.
    … this is going to get into deep political theory and maybe even politics proper if we go down this road. I'll leave it at "I disagree," and move on.

    But the truth spells should be used when you have problematic witnesses, not when things are crystal clear. If you can solve the case without truth spells that's good. Otherwise what's your suggestion ? That the judge decides on his own which witnesses are reliable and which aren't ? That's has a problem: the judge can be corrupt !
    A problematic witness will, by definition, be resistant to such magic and even when it succeeds can work around it unless you harm or threaten to harm him. If things are crystal clear, you don't need witnesses at all. My suggestion is that the judge use his (get this;) judgement and ask his questions anyway, while making the appropriate sense motive checks and considering the other surrounding evidence. That someone would be resistant to having their mind forcibly opened up and pried into should be incredibly obvious even if they are innocent. Nothing but the caster's own will keeps him on the subject at hand or compells -him- to speak truthfully.

    And if the judge, the caster and everybody else is evil or mind controlled the convict is doomed, but that's not a system specific fault.
    Corruption is not a binary "is it or isn't it" thing when it comes to any system built around human(oid) interaction. Some people within the system will be corrupt, others won't. You build the system with this idea in mind so that the people who aren't corrupt can mitigate the deleterious effects of those that are corrupt. By the same token, people make mistakes so you also put in some degree of redundancy to mitigate that fact.

    Simplicity is vicerally satisfying but rarely is it properly thorough when errors can destroy people. If your system demands everyone in it behave properly to function, it won't function very often if it functions at all.

    I seem to remember that modify memory can be removed, don't know if by dispel magic or remove curse.
    Permanent effect. It's subject to dispelling. It's not the only way to screw with someone's memory though.

    All systems can condemn innocents. Can you make an example when somebody gets condemned with truth spells but would have been released without ?
    Effortlessly. Town drunk happens to be found on the scene of a murder because he was blacked out in the same alley. The victim is his drinking buddy that everyone in the bar saw him fighting with the night before. He has no recollection of the last 10 hours but, having been a conscript in the last war, he's killed people before. Before he's ever questioned by any official, the whispers of onlookers and the demons of his past convince him he did it, that he killed his friend in a drunken frenzy while he was blacked out. When the judge asks him, "Did you kill him?" he says "yes" because he "knows" the magic the courts use prevents and points out lies. There's no reason for anyone to be overmuch worried about a bum knifing so the investigation of the scene is cursory and nothing to suggest any other course of events is found.

    In fact, the drinking buddy was actually a spy from a neighboring nation and was assassinated because he got made but this, being a matter of national security, never reaches the ears of anyone who doesn't need to know, including any investigators or the judge.

    The drunk is hanged for a murder that he didn't commit.

    Without the compulsive magic, maybe a few more questions get asked about how and why he killed his friend but "he said he did it and the judge's magic said it was the truth" so they wrapped it up and moved on.

    Why do they suspect the rogue of being guilty ? Did they found the jewels on him ? Did they see him fleeing from the vault ?
    Also as I said before the spells shouldn't be used for interrogation, but for confirming a version of the facts. The answers should be determinated before so that the convict agrees on them and knows what to say.
    So if the rogue says that he was sleeping and he wasn't part of the gang they would ask stuff like:"did you entered in the vault that night ?", "do you know/saw somebody who took the jewels from the vault ?", "have you ever left the inn that night ?". If he can say "No, no, no" the entire accusation would fall flat.
    The rogue could even propose some questions.
    And if the judge is corrupt ? Than he's doomed either way.
    You're missing the point. Sure, the factual truth of matters can be reached if you dig and build up a case. The point was that truth seeking magic can be decieved without telling deliberate lies. Truth spinning is a well known thing.
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Necroticplague View Post
    I wasn't thinking about spellcasters with their constant Mind Blanks or Protection from Law up. I was thinking of mundane people with such basic things as Deformity: Madness, Sculpt Self, and the Undead or Construct types.
    "Mmm, indeed. The average commoner is assuredly Vile, often deformed, and you can't ever count on one for rational thought." -- a noble, probably


    But seriously, "mundane people" generally doesn't mean constructs or undead, and Sculpt Self is a Dragon Mag custom-race subsystem -- anyone using that is creating a unique life-form, and it would be a bit of a stretch to call the lifeform "mundane".

    Plus the guy with Deformity: Madness might be summarily ruled insane, and hauled off to a madhouse without any chance at a criminal trial.

    Vile feats are explicitly supernatural, and represent non-mundane corruption.


    tl;dr - If you give them "basic things" like very advanced non-basic things, then sure. But those things are non-basic.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Necroticplague's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    You're missing the point. Sure, the factual truth of matters can be reached if you dig and build up a case. The point was that truth seeking magic can be decieved without telling deliberate lies. Truth spinning is a well known thing.
    Especially if one uses phrases that don't technically have any truth value to test for. Oh sure, "I'd argue against/dispute that." sounds like a way of saying 'no', but technically doesn't.
    Avatar by TinyMushroom.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Necroticplague's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    "Mmm, indeed. The average commoner is assuredly Vile, often deformed, and you can't ever count on one for rational thought." -- a noble, probably


    But seriously, "mundane people" generally doesn't mean constructs or undead, and Sculpt Self is a Dragon Mag custom-race subsystem -- anyone using that is creating a unique life-form, and it would be a bit of a stretch to call the lifeform "mundane".

    Plus the guy with Deformity: Madness might be summarily ruled insane, and hauled off to a madhouse without any chance at a criminal trial.

    Vile feats are explicitly supernatural, and represent non-mundane corruption.


    tl;dr - If you give them "basic things" like very advanced non-basic things, then sure. But those things are non-basic.
    Calling them 'basic' might have been a bit of a stretch, but may main point is that 'they keep up detect magic to see if you're immune' wouldn't work.
    Avatar by TinyMushroom.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    The pulling a weapon analogy is off here - what's going on is more someone pulling an unknown object out of a bag large enough to contain a weapon. Officially even most medieval societies wouldn't consider this a reasonable case of self defense in the abstract, let alone most modern societies.

    The specific case is a different matter. If the murderer is the right sort of person, and the victim the right sort of person, the defense needed can be incredibly minimal or absolutely ridiculous, ranging from cases along the lines of "while I was in this heavy vehicle, this totally unarmed person outside was walking a little close, I felt threatened, and I shot them" being taken as valid and "this squad of heavily armed people kicked down my door in the middle of the night, and swarmed in with weapons while I was sleeping" not being taken as valid.

    If the specific situation here is closer to the former case, the PC is probably fine. If it's closer to the latter, or even fairly neutral, they're likely hosed. As for where it falls on that line, that's incredibly setting specific, and depends mostly on how out of town strangers, known adventurers, high class prostitutes*, and mages are treated. We know it's a large trading city, which at least implies some minimum standard for out of town strangers, though there's still plenty of room for it to be relatively low (if not at the levels that can be hit in insular communities). Most of the rest is up in the air.

    *This is an assumption, but the description given of a highly socially competent mid level character who is also a mage points to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Necroticplague View Post
    If we're going to be taking the magic of DnD's world into account, that raises another thorny question: is killing someone even necessarily wrong? I mean, the afterlife does provably exist, so are you aren't really cutting off their future in the same way killing does in real life, so is there really significant harm? She's still alive, and quiet possibly in a better state than before.
    Under this line of reasoning there are several real world societies that you'd expect to not care about murder, some modern, more historical, all convinced that the afterlife is proven to exist by their standards of proof. Yet they're all hostile to murder in law, and to murder of at least some people by at least some other people in practice.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    They can't just say they think that. They have to actually think it. That's the difference. The spell, as InvisibleBison points out, doesn't tell you what the actual truth of the matter is. That's not it's purpose. It tells you only whether or not the target is lying. Telling the truth in a misleading way isn't lying. It's certainly deception and a pretty basic misinformation technique but it's -not- speaking a false statement.
    The spell tells you objetively if the target is lying. The point is not what the reality of the matter is, the point is that the target can't say something he knows it's false.
    Unless (and that's the problem of objective language) he can choose to intend the words with a different meaning. "Did you lefet the inn that night ?" and he says "No" because he intend the inn as the entire city, even if he knows perfectly what the judge intended.
    But if that's the case the spell it's useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    A problematic witness will, by definition, be resistant to such magic and even when it succeeds can work around it unless you harm or threaten to harm him. If things are crystal clear, you don't need witnesses at all. My suggestion is that the judge use his (get this;) judgement and ask his questions anyway, while making the appropriate sense motive checks and considering the other surrounding evidence. That someone would be resistant to having their mind forcibly opened up and pried into should be incredibly obvious even if they are innocent. Nothing but the caster's own will keeps him on the subject at hand or compells -him- to speak truthfully.
    If a witness doesn't want to be confirmed by magic that would rise a lot of questions and reduce the value of what he says. But what I was talking about was still using magic to interrogate the defendant, if the situation is unclear, which generally happens when there are no witnesses or they are unreliable.
    "Mr Rogue, given that the only witness is you friend and he refuse to submit to discern lies, you are going to confirm your version under the spell. Otherwise I will consider you guilty."

    Also "having their mind forcibly opened up and pried" is quite an exaggeration, it doesn't do anyhting of the sort. The caster can't read the thoughts of the target.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    Corruption is not a binary "is it or isn't it" thing when it comes to any system built around human(oid) interaction. Some people within the system will be corrupt, others won't. You build the system with this idea in mind so that the people who aren't corrupt can mitigate the deleterious effects of those that are corrupt. By the same token, people make mistakes so you also put in some degree of redundancy to mitigate that fact.
    If you fear the judge can be corrupt what's your solution ? It seems to me that is to have more judges.
    So the simple solution here is to have more casters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    Permanent effect. It's subject to dispelling. It's not the only way to screw with someone's memory though.
    The others being ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    Effortlessly. Town drunk happens to be found on the scene of a murder because he was blacked out in the same alley. The victim is his drinking buddy that everyone in the bar saw him fighting with the night before. He has no recollection of the last 10 hours but, having been a conscript in the last war, he's killed people before. Before he's ever questioned by any official, the whispers of onlookers and the demons of his past convince him he did it, that he killed his friend in a drunken frenzy while he was blacked out. When the judge asks him, "Did you kill him?" he says "yes" because he "knows" the magic the courts use prevents and points out lies. There's no reason for anyone to be overmuch worried about a bum knifing so the investigation of the scene is cursory and nothing to suggest any other course of events is found.

    In fact, the drinking buddy was actually a spy from a neighboring nation and was assassinated because he got made but this, being a matter of national security, never reaches the ears of anyone who doesn't need to know, including any investigators or the judge.

    The drunk is hanged for a murder that he didn't commit.


    Without the compulsive magic, maybe a few more questions get asked about how and why he killed his friend but "he said he did it and the judge's magic said it was the truth" so they wrapped it up and moved on.
    If he confess to have killed his friend while drunk the obvious thought would be that it's not strange that he doesn't remember exactly how he did it.
    The guy would be condemned with any system. Seriously what would be your defense line ? "He obviously didn't do it because he doesn't remember how he did it ? Yes, he was drunk, admitted the fact, had reason to do it and there are no other suspects, but those are details..."

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    You're missing the point. Sure, the factual truth of matters can be reached if you dig and build up a case. The point was that truth seeking magic can be decieved without telling deliberate lies. Truth spinning is a well known thing.
    Well, it doesn't seem to be the case here, or can you explain how the rogue is going to spin the truth with the questions that I provided (the second one is supposed to be two different questions with the difference signaled by the /). And notice that a real trial would involve dozens or hundreds of very specific questions.

    I also have to notice that the case in the OP would actually be solved easily, while the one with the drunken guy falsely accused would end with a giulty verdict under any system.
    So on 3 cases we have 2 that can be solved with magic, while one can't be solved either way. I must say that the obvious flaws of the system are not so obvious.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Swamplandia

    Default Re: Is it reasonable to use "they were casting a spell" to claim self-defense?

    This thread led me to a thought. The assumed thought that the penalty for a crime is jail.

    Why are jails a thing in D&D worlds? They are either trivially easy to get out of for mid-level characters, or must cost so much to construct that one wonders how they could be worth the investment. Furthermore they are an obvious hazard to the city, a large group of people trapped in a small chambers, usually in darkness, and unarmed? It's the ideal growth medium for self-replicating undead. A single Ghoul or Shadow gets into the Bastille and Paris falls by the next day. They are also a tempting target for any number of races or beings from Vampires to Mind Flayers to Drow Slavers. And countering these external threats as well as the internal ones would make jails expensive to operate.

    There are probably societies where some of these traits are mitigated or even desirable, but in general most D&D societies would (IMHO) find jails to be a poor solution. Holding cells while awaiting trial? Sure. A drunk tank? Sure. Dungeons? Sure. But mass incarceration is a poor choice I think.

    So what do they do with criminals instead?
    Exile
    Banishment
    Slavery
    Corporal Punishment
    Fines
    Branding/Magical Marking
    Geas
    Work Gangs
    Curse/Hex
    Banish to another plane
    Polymorph Other
    Execution
    Feed to the Monster
    Execute/Raise
    Execute/Raise/Execute/etc...
    Execute/Turned to mindless undead
    Conscription
    Heal (Cures all mental problems)

    I mean, in a D&D world you could torture someone to death, make them pay for their own raise dead, and then say "Don't do it again." But the only thing they could come up with was jail?
    Last edited by Andor13; 2018-04-17 at 10:56 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •