| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was something that came up twice now but it was last night that really made me want to make a post.
So we're playing an AP that has a trial and we have someone on the stand we KNOW is lying to us. Rest of the players are trying to figure out how to catch him in one when I bring up "Couldn't we just zone of truth?". I had used it before in another game and that worked okay. But another player pointed out it's flaws(The will save and knowing you are effected by the spell) and actually took a dive into spells while we were debating. He only found 1 Paladin spell "Touch of Truth Telling" that would work but that belongs to a certain god. A dead one named Abadar.
So this got me thinking; is Sense Motive strong enough to compete with spells? I mean that's why basically everyone seems to suggest raising it if you can because you can't easily swap it out with a spell, right? I suppose you could get spells to raise your Sense Motive bonus but you still need the skill.
The only thing that might put a wrench into this idea is the use of Command spells. Couldn't you just use some sort of Charm/Command/Mind Control spell to get the truth you want from a subject? Now granted, in a Trial, that is basically asking the other side to just call Foul for all number of reasons but I think that's a way to get around lying.
I dunno, what I'm saying probably has been discussed before but the event sparked a desire to hear from other people. Magic can split the earth, control weather, and make demi planes. Can it keep up with a silver tongued two faced liar though? If so what are some ways to do so(That probably doesn't just give bonuses to Intimidate checks).
If the person lying isn't using any spells themselves then discern lies cuts to the heart of the matter. It's the spell version of a lie detector It won't tell you the truth only if the person is lying. No save, no spell resistance, no skill check.
It can be defeated, but only by using other magic (eg. sequester thoughts, deceitful veneer).
In the case of a court trial, the judge or some other impartial third party should be the one using discern lies. Even if it's not being used by a 3rd party it should at the very least be grounds for an objection to what is being stated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the person lying isn't using any spells themselves then discern lies cuts to the heart of the matter. It's the spell version of a lie detector It won't tell you the truth only if the person is lying. No save
Will negates.
Perhaps an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, since we are talking a fantasy world where breaking such an oath means something. Since by taking such an oath is by definition foregoing a saving throw it can't be made meaningless unless the table wants it to be so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know when a targeted spell is successfully saved against.
I would expect if the court had a caster that had access to the spell that they would notify the court if the person successfully saved.
I also imagine that you would be legally compelled to accept the spell.
They can't make you tell the truth, but they can make you accept that you can't lie or hold you in contempt of court.
Honestly if I was making the legal system, not accepting the effects of the spell would be a crime that would see you locked up until you decided to comply. But I'm not a good or nice person. I tend to view myself as lawful neutral.
Do we really want a spell that can completely negate both Bluff and Sense Motive?
It doesn't completely negate anything. You can't cast truth telling spells in most social situations. It just makes interrogations of prisoners and trials more certain. If you're a prisoner or defendant you've already got enough problems.
In any case, Mind Probe/Dream Scan work even if truth telling magic doesn't. Don't ask, just pull information directly from their mind.
Not to derail the conversation, but Abadar is alive, unlike a similarly named Aroden, who is allegedly, and to all known evidence, deceased.
This might make a difference to some games.
So you use your bluffs etcetera to avoid going to court at all costs, like you see happening in stories from ancient China, to Viking sagas, to US westerns. If you prefer to have no viable cultural impact on things like this, that is ok too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you happen to have a paladin of Iomedae available?
Because they can solve any case (with an prestige class).
An Inheritor's Crusader has this ability:
Sword Against Injustice (Su)
At 3rd level, a crusader may use his power to judge the guilty and absolve the innocent. As a standard action he may announce he is bringing divine judgment upon a target who is accused of a crime, lie, or other affront to justice; the crusader makes a melee attack with his sword against the target as part of this judgment. If the target is innocent of what he is accused, the attack stops just short of striking him, as if hitting an invisible wall; if the target is guilty, the attack automatically hits with a flash of white light.This attack requires no attack roll and cannot critically hit. If the target is protected by an effect that inhibits divinations (such as mind blank), the attack bounces off the target with an unpleasant metallic hiss, like quenching a red-hot blade in water. The crusader may use this ability once per day; each additional use beyond the first drains him, causing him to become fatigued. He cannot use this class ability if he is exhausted. He may expend a use of channel energy or lay on hands while activating this ability to prevent fatigue. Sometimes people wrongly accused of great crimes beg for the intercession of an Inheritor’s crusader, knowing this power will exonerate them.
It doesn't care how good you lie or what you believe. It just divines if the target is innocent or not.
Do you happen to have a paladin of Iomedae available?
Because they can solve any case (with an prestige class).
An Inheritor's Crusader has this ability:
It doesn't care how good you lie or what you believe. It just divines if the target is innocent or not.Sword Against Injustice (Su)
At 3rd level, a crusader may use his power to judge the guilty and absolve the innocent. As a standard action he may announce he is bringing divine judgment upon a target who is accused of a crime, lie, or other affront to justice; the crusader makes a melee attack with his sword against the target as part of this judgment. If the target is innocent of what he is accused, the attack stops just short of striking him, as if hitting an invisible wall; if the target is guilty, the attack automatically hits with a flash of white light.This attack requires no attack roll and cannot critically hit. If the target is protected by an effect that inhibits divinations (such as mind blank), the attack bounces off the target with an unpleasant metallic hiss, like quenching a red-hot blade in water. The crusader may use this ability once per day; each additional use beyond the first drains him, causing him to become fatigued. He cannot use this class ability if he is exhausted. He may expend a use of channel energy or lay on hands while activating this ability to prevent fatigue. Sometimes people wrongly accused of great crimes beg for the intercession of an Inheritor’s crusader, knowing this power will exonerate them.
This one can't be beaten by bluff, but it can be beaten by magic (Still a great ability though).
Not to derail the conversation, but Abadar is alive, unlike a similarly named Aroden, who is allegedly, and to all known evidence, deceased.
This might make a difference to some games.
Durp I feel dumb. Typed up the first one half asleep I guess? Sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This one can't be beaten by bluff, but it can be beaten by magic (Still a great ability though).Do you happen to have a paladin of Iomedae available?
Because they can solve any case (with an prestige class).
An Inheritor's Crusader has this ability:
It doesn't care how good you lie or what you believe. It just divines if the target is innocent or not.Sword Against Injustice (Su)
At 3rd level, a crusader may use his power to judge the guilty and absolve the innocent. As a standard action he may announce he is bringing divine judgment upon a target who is accused of a crime, lie, or other affront to justice; the crusader makes a melee attack with his sword against the target as part of this judgment. If the target is innocent of what he is accused, the attack stops just short of striking him, as if hitting an invisible wall; if the target is guilty, the attack automatically hits with a flash of white light.This attack requires no attack roll and cannot critically hit. If the target is protected by an effect that inhibits divinations (such as mind blank), the attack bounces off the target with an unpleasant metallic hiss, like quenching a red-hot blade in water. The crusader may use this ability once per day; each additional use beyond the first drains him, causing him to become fatigued. He cannot use this class ability if he is exhausted. He may expend a use of channel energy or lay on hands while activating this ability to prevent fatigue. Sometimes people wrongly accused of great crimes beg for the intercession of an Inheritor’s crusader, knowing this power will exonerate them.
I mean, it has an obvious effect if some sort of magic blocks it, letting everyone know that's the case.
Which seems like it would result in everyone saying, "Alright, lets just get that pesky magic off of you or we're going to assume you're guilty."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This one can't be beaten by bluff, but it can be beaten by magic (Still a great ability though).Do you happen to have a paladin of Iomedae available?
Because they can solve any case (with an prestige class).
An Inheritor's Crusader has this ability:
Sword Against Injustice (Su)It doesn't care how good you lie or what you believe. It just divines if the target is innocent or not.I mean, it has an obvious effect if some sort of magic blocks it, letting everyone know that's the case.
Which seems like it would result in everyone saying, "Alright, lets just get that pesky magic off of you or we're going to assume you're guilty."
True, but someone could cast a blocker on an innocent person to throw the Paladin off the scent. It would reveal a block, but not necessarily solve the case (It'd certainly make someone a "person of interest").
As I said, it's a great ability, but not foolproof.
Perhaps an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, since we are talking a fantasy world where breaking such an oath means something. Since by taking such an oath is by definition foregoing a saving throw it can't be made meaningless unless the table wants it to be so.
There are demons and gods were falsehoods and lying is part of serving them.
A follower of such creatures is hardly going to suffer divine retribution for lying or taking a false oath.
A Living Monolith can invoke divine authority to demand truth from both the living and the dead. It acts as a Mark of Judgement, set to activate if the target lies and allows no saving throw.
Even then, questions must be asked most precisely and still offer nothing against partial truths and non-answers that can be misinterpreted by not not closely following the exact wording. I would still allow this as part of a bluff check or profession: barrister.
First thing in a legal setting the person being questioned will probably in custody and under close observation. If they are a suspect than more likely than not they will have all items including clothes removed and given a set of clothes to wear. If the accused is known to be a spell caster they will probably be under direct observation at all times. Casting any spell will be strictly forbidden and likely considered an admission of guilt. Since most spells have a limited duration the suspect will probably be held for long enough time for most spells to wear off.
Detect magic is a 0 level spell that almost any spell caster has access to. This will be cast on any suspects on a regular basis during the time they are in custody. Combine this will things like dispel magic, or anti-magic zone and the chances of a suspect being able to have any kind of magical defense functioning is pretty slim.
In addition to spells that directly determine truth there are spells that magically augment skills. Just because you have a spell that allows you to do something does not mean that is the only way to accomplish it. An inquisitor using Focused Scrutiny is going to be very difficult to lie to without magical means to boost you bluff skill.
In medieval justice there is no jury, the judge is the one who determines guilt. If the Judge is a spell caster and cast a spell he does not need proof he is telling the truth he simply renders judgement. Inquisitors would make the best judges in the game.
Saving throws are less important than people think. If the target of the spell makes the save simply cast it again and again until the target fails. A natural 1 always fails no matter how high your bonus. And since a caster knows if the target makes the save, he will know if it needs to be cast again. This may mean the trial drags on until the needed result is obtained, but there is no time limit for a trial.
It really seems like this is more about whether gameworld society is capable of functionality without or against PC uberness. It's mostly taste and opinion I think.
It really seems like this is more about whether gameworld society is capable of functionality without or against PC uberness. It's mostly taste and opinion I think.
Zone of Truth is a second level spell; a cleric of that caliber will be available in any city in Golarion, and other settings that aren't specifically low magic.
I think that, if we're assuming this is a more modern style court system that cares about discerning the truth, resisting the will save on Zone of Truth would be equivalent to saying "no" when the judge asks you to promise to tell only the truth. You are now in contempt of court, go directly to jail, do not collect $200.
I think that, if we're assuming this is a more modern style court system that cares about discerning the truth, resisting the will save on Zone of Truth would be equivalent to saying "no" when the judge asks you to promise to tell only the truth. You are now in contempt of court, go directly to jail, do not collect $200.
Speaking only to modern society, it's hard to make a judgement based purely on RAW because it's hard to know how the spell reacts in different situations. There's definitely potential for abuse though, and I think you'd see a push to get it out of the courtroom make information obtained through its use inadmissible. Skilled prosecutors and defense attorneys could abuse its function, interrogators would just look at it as another tool to put pressure on suspects (and we already know interrogations are often deliberately set up to warp peoples' sense of reality, so does the false confession count as deliberately lying if they've got me believing it?), and ultimately you're just shifting the burden of trust onto the person who cast the spell and knows if the subject passed or failed their save. "Deliberate and intentional lies" suggests all kinds of possibility for the truth to get warped in unpleasant ways.
And as someone just pointed out to me, most witnesses are under misapprehensions of what they saw.
Edit: Actually Zone of Truth is an AoE spell, so I don't believe the caster even knows if the save has been passed or not.
I think you're giving modern courts too much credit by introducing that much nuance, but that's a topic for a different forum. :p
^That depends very much upon which Lawful deity you're talking about. After all, Asmodeus has Trickery as one of his Cleric Domains . . . .