Re: Non-Evil Assassins

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:27:58 -0800, Stephenls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> 
> > Not so - first you have to catch them, and you need witnesses to the
> > questioning.
> 
> Not if you're using a legal system other than the one used currently in 
> most first world countries.  A magocracy with access to scry and true 
> seeing, or someone with a commune spell ("Did Bob kill his wife in cold 
> blood, yes or no?") could easily tell guilt without a trial with a high 
> grade of success, and most counters to that ("Evidence gathered by magic 
> is inadmissible") has always seemed to me to be used as a dodge by 
> people who feel uncomfortable with the idea of a court system different 
> from ours.

I'm not concered about silliness like that. It's issues of reliability
- accepting the testimony of a single cleric that so and so "did it"
based on a Discern Lie or Zone of Truth spell is no better than
condemming someone because a person with a good reputation in the
community fingered them.

As for Commune - it's not cheap, and not every community will have the
9th level cleric needed to cast it (and once you factor in that not
all gods will give useful answers to questions about some crimes there
are even fewer around). I'm not saying it couldn't work in some
societies, mind - just that it's unlikely to be the norm.

-- 
Rupert Boleyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."