- Location
- Germany
To add to this particular case, make it clear that a failed truth-spell is no evidence of guilt in itself and should not be treated as such.
A Sword Without a Hilt: A Song of Ice and Fire/D&D 3.5 Crossover
- Thread starter DragonParadox
- Start date
-
- Tags
- a song of ice and fire a sword without a hilt d&d 3.5 dungeons & dragons 100% high octane dragon fuel ave corvidae battle action dragon diplomacy best sister bureaucromancy delicious soul-stuff dragon dreams come true dragon ta'veren greatest uncle hubris is a coward's word in defiance of gods and men mammon's folly mutually assured mage's disjunction qm murderhobo top tier coatl
I'm not sure what you're getting at here with the bit about types of divination. I don't think he believes truth spells are evil, just that people shouldn't be compelled to subject themselves to whatever sort of magic the courts want to use on them over the course of a case.
More broadly, this also sort of lines up with the idea of not being forced to bear witness against yourself, so I sympathize with his position on putting some checks on the use of this sort of magic.
We should probably use this opportunity to describe exactly when truth spells are appropriate and what sort of questions can be asked of someone subjected to them while under investigation.
It would create a lot of legitimate dissent if nobility and judges could just have anyone subjected to a truth spell and broadly interrogate them until they have something incriminating enough to punish them for or similar nonsense.
In the last turn vote the law action notes which provinces it has already been imposed in.
- Location
- Argentina
Right. Thank you then. I'm going to check everything out
Goldfish
Friendly Spider-Fish Abomination
- Location
- Formerly of the Far Realm
Done.
Clarified my wording a bit to be more precise in when and how the spells can be used when investigating crimes.
- Location
- Germany
We do subject people to constant divination by using spells like Divination and Commune to look out for crimes, particularly crimes of the kind that would involve the Inquisition.
If people can try to get out of Truth Spells under religious reasons, do they also have the right not to be subject to other investigative spells?
Not to be divined, scryed or mind-read by our investigators?
I'd say no. We, the state, retain the right to use divination on our own citizens as we consider appropriate and necessary.
[X] Address the matter once it reaches the floor of the curia
-[X] Truth magic is too useful a tool to set aside on any grounds, but it does require stricter limits to prevent abuse.
—[X] Interrogations using truth spells must now be conducted in private with transcripts of the relevant results being made available to the court at large. Interrogators themselves must be sworn to secrecy on any incidental (that is not criminal) matters that may be revealed.
—[X] All questions asked during such interrogations must be related to specific evidence or events. They must also be rigorous and allow for expansion from the accused at their discretion.
—[X] Resisting a truth spell itself is not evidence of anything, nor may the courts punish someone for doing so.
As it stands a malicious prosecutor could take a suspect, stand them up before a court and any witnesses who care to be present, then dope them with truth magic and ask any questions they want on any topic they please.
They could also play games like asking you under compulsion if you owned the bloody knife found at the scene of the crime and then deny the suspect the right to also testify that it was stolen a week ago while their testimony has magically backed trustworthiness.
We might as well address the whole issue at once rather than as a series of separate incidents.
-[X] Truth magic is too useful a tool to set aside on any grounds, but it does require stricter limits to prevent abuse.
—[X] Interrogations using truth spells must now be conducted in private with transcripts of the relevant results being made available to the court at large. Interrogators themselves must be sworn to secrecy on any incidental (that is not criminal) matters that may be revealed.
—[X] All questions asked during such interrogations must be related to specific evidence or events. They must also be rigorous and allow for expansion from the accused at their discretion.
—[X] Resisting a truth spell itself is not evidence of anything, nor may the courts punish someone for doing so.
I'm not suggesting that we allow religious exemptions to this sort of thing, just that we at least loosely define how courts can use them to limit abuse.
As it stands a malicious prosecutor could take a suspect, stand them up before a court and any witnesses who care to be present, then dope them with truth magic and ask any questions they want on any topic they please.
They could also play games like asking you under compulsion if you owned the bloody knife found at the scene of the crime and then deny the suspect the right to also testify that it was stolen a week ago while their testimony has magically backed trustworthiness.
We might as well address the whole issue at once rather than as a series of separate incidents.
- Location
- Greece
> When spells are used in this manner during a trial or during the investigation into a crime preceding a trial, the questions will be strictly limited to discovering the subject's guilt or innocence in relation to the crime(s) being investigated and nothing more. Any attempt to deviate from these guidelines will result in ruinous fines, dismissal from service, and subsequent blacklisting throughout the Imperium.
> Of course, a failed truth spell itself is no evidence of wrongdoing, merely a sign that the subject's will could not be overcome by that particular casting of the spell. Additional casting attempts may be needed.
This feels odd, @Goldfish. You are sharply restricting truth magic to only focus on pertinent matters, denying exceptions in its use.. but stating that resisting one is not a crime, guaranteeing every crook is going to risk needing multiple castings and hence drain upon the administration?
One of these is not like the other in regards to direction. Keep restrictions, speak against exceptions and make it a crime. Something simple, like obstructing the course of justice. Fines tacked in.
> Of course, a failed truth spell itself is no evidence of wrongdoing, merely a sign that the subject's will could not be overcome by that particular casting of the spell. Additional casting attempts may be needed.
This feels odd, @Goldfish. You are sharply restricting truth magic to only focus on pertinent matters, denying exceptions in its use.. but stating that resisting one is not a crime, guaranteeing every crook is going to risk needing multiple castings and hence drain upon the administration?
One of these is not like the other in regards to direction. Keep restrictions, speak against exceptions and make it a crime. Something simple, like obstructing the course of justice. Fines tacked in.
Last edited:
Goldfish
Friendly Spider-Fish Abomination
- Location
- Formerly of the Far Realm
Resisting the spell doesn't mean denying its use, but literally resisting, as in making the Will save to resist its effects.
- Location
- Greece
Unless it's different in 3e over PF and we are going by the former's rules, you can willingly fail a save against spells. Explicitly. So not doing so does amount to denial.
Goldfish
Friendly Spider-Fish Abomination
- Location
- Formerly of the Far Realm
I don't want to dictate whether or not one must willingly fail to resist the spell. Feels gimmicky.
- Location
- Greece
The great majority of buff spells do allow saves which puts most every combat strategy so far into question.. but all good.
[X] Address the matter once it reaches the floor of the Curia
-[X] We have no intention of allowing anyone in a criminal case to opt out of being subjected to truth finding spells, though that does not mean such spells can be used to unfairly invade one's privacy. When spells are used in this manner during a trial or during the investigation into a crime preceding a trial, the questions will be strictly limited to discovering the subject's guilt or innocence in relation to the crime(s) being investigated and nothing more. Any attempt to deviate from these guidelines will result in ruinous fines, dismissal from service, and subsequent blacklisting throughout the Imperium. The subject may speak further under truth magic at their own discretion.
--[X] Resisting truth magic (not willingly failing the save) is a minor crime [Details to be determined by @Azel ? I do not know the legal system] linearly increasing in severity with every failed attempt of the relevant spell cast.
Last edited:
Perhaps, but that seems a bit gamified to me. It seems reasonable to assume that some people will have genuine difficulties suppressing a save if they have serious aversions to whatever they're saving against.
Like, you could technically suppress your "reflex save" to release a dangerously hot piece of metal, but I doubt most people could do so off the cuff. Almost certainly not on the first try.
If we're not going to bother unpacking this particular detail and how it'd work out IC then dropping the exception seems would be fine, but punishing people for things they (at least theoretically) couldn't help but do would be pointless.
- Location
- United Kingdom
[X] Goldfish
- Location
- Texas
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Goldfish
- Location
- Germany
The issue is making it a positive right to resist. One could argue that repeated castings against the witnesses best efforts constitutes torture. Malarys certainly wouldn't like having to judge such a case.
- Location
- Argentina
We are talking about Manderly. We should grab that Cornugon that could have wiped his city and use it as a sock puppet.
- Location
- United States
Too late. It's already been soul-killed.
Valaena's spiked chain ate it in Steadfast Coils when it was reforged into Valyrian Steel.
Shame it couldn't be Imperial Steel, but eh.
EDIT: Oh, wait. You meant the trophy.