PDA

View Full Version : spamming detect evil



Ettina
2014-08-24, 09:41 AM
I had an interesting idea. What if I played as a cleric who randomly spammed detect evil at everyone she met?

If it was played realistically, she should find many 'evil' people who have absolutely nothing to do with the plot, like a random NPC who's abusing his wife and kids but otherwise just an ordinary guy, or a corrupt businessman who's worried all this trouble with the goblins might cut into his profits. It would be interesting to see what the cleric does with knowing there are random evil guys everywhere.

DM Nate
2014-08-24, 09:51 AM
You mean kind of like how Paladins can do it at will?

S@tanicoaldo
2014-08-24, 09:57 AM
He will go insane. :smallwink:

AMFV
2014-08-24, 10:18 AM
I had an interesting idea. What if I played as a cleric who randomly spammed detect evil at everyone she met?

If it was played realistically, she should find many 'evil' people who have absolutely nothing to do with the plot, like a random NPC who's abusing his wife and kids but otherwise just an ordinary guy, or a corrupt businessman who's worried all this trouble with the goblins might cut into his profits. It would be interesting to see what the cleric does with knowing there are random evil guys everywhere.

Well the Cleric should know this already, Knowledge (Religion) is a class skill for them, and that should let them know that there are lots of random Evil people around. What he (or she) does with that knowledge has a lot to do with which particular knowledge has more to do with his (or her) particular religion than anything else.

Kalmageddon
2014-08-24, 10:26 AM
This idea is both pointless and stupid.
The game will grind to a halt unless your GM rightfully tells you to cut it out.
Don't do it.

Prince Raven
2014-08-24, 10:35 AM
Then everyone would avoid the crazy cleric who goes around invoking their deity to determine the presence of evil. The deity also might get a bit annoyed as well.

Guizonde
2014-08-24, 11:00 AM
my dm misread how a paladin's aura detect worked (we were working with few complete books due to a move that went badly). he ruled that my paladin had frequent nosebleeds for no reason unless i actively searched the source of my discomfort. i fainted in a particularly evil location.

i believe that there was a thread or possibly a q and a about this, how a cleric casting detect evil at everything would be seen as extremely rude as it is prying into a person's mind. so, okay for evil clerics but fall-worthy for any good one.

but yeah, it's totally silly and you shouldn't do it, like a merchant haggling for 2 real time hours on the price of a bucket of wheat. (yes, i lived through that, and no, i did not player kill).

AMFV
2014-08-24, 11:08 AM
my dm misread how a paladin's aura detect worked (we were working with few complete books due to a move that went badly). he ruled that my paladin had frequent nosebleeds for no reason unless i actively searched the source of my discomfort. i fainted in a particularly evil location.

Well to be fair that's actually a benefit since that's giving you detect evil for free and letting you know when you should be detecting evil.



i believe that there was a thread or possibly a q and a about this, how a cleric casting detect evil at everything would be seen as extremely rude as it is prying into a person's mind. so, okay for evil clerics but fall-worthy for any good one.

Good does not encompass personal freedom in D&D, that's on a different axis. So it wouldn't be fall worthy (depending on your deity) but it might be socially not great.

Ettina
2014-08-24, 07:17 PM
i believe that there was a thread or possibly a q and a about this, how a cleric casting detect evil at everything would be seen as extremely rude as it is prying into a person's mind. so, okay for evil clerics but fall-worthy for any good one.

Rude =|= evil

Plus, I thought the falling rule only applied to paladins. I think clerics can be a different alignment than their god, as long as they still mostly follow what their god wants from them, and their god either doesn't notice or doesn't object to their alignment.

Also, do they automatically know you're casting detect evil? I thought they'd need to be paying attention and pass a Knowledge check to figure it out. They'd know you were chanting and doing gestures, but not necessarily why, and the character could just claim to be 'praying' or something.

Red Fel
2014-08-24, 07:49 PM
Rude =|= evil

Plus, I thought the falling rule only applied to paladins. I think clerics can be a different alignment than their god, as long as they still mostly follow what their god wants from them, and their god either doesn't notice or doesn't object to their alignment.

Also, do they automatically know you're casting detect evil? I thought they'd need to be paying attention and pass a Knowledge check to figure it out. They'd know you were chanting and doing gestures, but not necessarily why, and the character could just claim to be 'praying' or something.

First: Clerics can be one alignment step away from their deities. Beyond that, they lose their class features, and possibly earn a smitin'.

Second: I don't know which version of D&D you're playing (you might want to move this to the appropriate subforum), but in 3.5, Detect Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) has some limitations.: It takes a standard action to cast, and requires focusing for three rounds (18 seconds) to get a proper read on something. You don't just turn it on and get an instant ping - you have to focus for three rounds in order to figure out precisely what is radiating evil, and precisely how much. Even assuming you can bluff your way out of casting the spell, people will notice you staring at them for eighteen seconds, all creepy-stalker-like. It doesn't actually do a great job of telling who the evil people are; as a general rule, unless the target is an Evil Undead, Evil Outsider, Evil Magical Doodad, or Cleric of an Evil Deity (regardless of personal morality), they'll probably only generate a faint evil aura. It's a spell, so unless you have a source of at-will use (like that Paladin next to you does), you get to "spam" it about five times per day (maybe a few more times if you crank up your Wis). It's a divination effect, which means that there are plenty of ways to interfere with it (e.g. Nondetection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nondetection.htm)) or cause it to backfire (e.g. Live My Nightmare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/spelltouchedFeats.htm#liveMyNightmare)).
As an aside, seriously rude. Rude may not be evil, but it ain't pretty. Even the Paladin is looking at you funny. "Dude, really?" he asks, incredulous.

Slipperychicken
2014-08-24, 08:04 PM
Pathfinder has a good fix for this: Detect [Alignment] spells don't work on normal creatures under 4 HD (aside from divine casters, undead, and outsiders). That means your small-time crooks and troublemakers aren't going to ping.

Also, I'd think a traveling Cleric or Paladin would just make a list of evil-detecting people when he walks through town, then pass it off to the local clergy or town guard. That way the doesn't waste his time, and he knows those people will be handled by the locals.

Prince Raven
2014-08-24, 10:39 PM
Also, do they automatically know you're casting detect evil? I thought they'd need to be paying attention and pass a Knowledge check to figure it out. They'd know you were chanting and doing gestures, but not necessarily why, and the character could just claim to be 'praying' or something.

The Cleric is holding up their divine focus, pointing in front of them and imploring their god to show them the presence of evil (though not necessarily in a language the people around them understand).
They just might figure the cleric is using some sort of detection spell.

BeerMug Paladin
2014-08-24, 11:01 PM
If spellcasting existed, I might be suspicious if a stranger who just arrived in the area chanted a spell and waved their arms around, then began staring at me intensely.

Probably get a town guard over there to check out the weird guy who's acting suspicious. Maybe they're casting the spell Detect Appropriate Humanoid Sacrifice.

Most guards have very few ranks in spellcraft or knowledge(arcana/divine).

Ettina
2014-08-24, 11:47 PM
If spellcasting existed, I might be suspicious if a stranger who just arrived in the area chanted a spell and waved their arms around, then began staring at me intensely.

What if they aren't staring at you? It's a cone, right? She could easily be staring off into the crowd, and you just happen to be in the affected area.

Mr Beer
2014-08-24, 11:58 PM
If I was the GM I would discourage this behaviour:

1. You would discover a lot of plot-irrelevant evil people i.e. would get so much information it becomes irrelevant.

2. People would notice you casting spells and get annoyed.

3. Powerful people would get dangerously annoyed when you invade their privacy like this.

4. Plot relevant evil people would often take precautions.

5. You will mislead yourself. The secret bad guy is not evil, the fake secret bad guy is evil. You just fell into your own trap, such irony.

BeerMug Paladin
2014-08-25, 12:20 AM
What if they aren't staring at you? It's a cone, right? She could easily be staring off into the crowd, and you just happen to be in the affected area.
That's true, but even so, in most casual situations there's just no reason to be casting spells out in the general public. You could just as easily be casting something to lay down curses on a building, an area, curse the growth of nearby plant life, place a charm on someone, make the weather suck, etc...

If I see someone behaving in an erratic fashion with no apparent motive, I'm going to be suspicious of them. Someone spellcasting is probably a good indicator of hostile intent somewhere close by. Or an attack about to happen, somewhere.

Of course, if I had magic powers, I'd probably use them in just such an erratic fashion as well. But that's the difference between being a DM and being a player. As a player, you can be as cuckoo-bananas as you like.

Ettina
2014-08-25, 12:23 AM
I'm not seeing anything here that would reasonably stop a smart cleric or paladin with a good Bluff score from spamming detect evil. In fact, I'm starting to think they'd have to be an idiot not to spam it.

Yeah, it might annoy people, you won't always catch the real bad guy, and you'd catch some irrelevant bad guys, but think of the advantages. Why wouldn't you use it on anyone who you have to work with, at least? It would catch anyone who wasn't expecting someone to cast detect evil on them. If most clerics/paladins only use detect evil when they're already suspicious, then there'll probably be plenty of villains who'll try to trick them without having undetectable alignment, because on most clerics/paladins it would work. Meanwhile, my character goes and sits in a quiet corner, claiming she needs to pray, starts muttering in a language they don't know while gazing at her focus with her face pointed in their general direction, then gets her results. Then, she takes her teammates aside when the guy's gone, and explains what she sensed. Yeah, the guy knows she's doing cleric stuff, but she just said she was going to pray, and staring at your focus and muttering is consistent with praying.

I already have a spellcaster who spams detect thoughts using a similar trick. She even used detect thoughts in the middle of a city, just outside the house of a questgiver guy. (He wasn't thinking anything suspicious, because he really was the innocent concerned father he seemed to be. And none of the random bystanders caught by the spell knew anything either.) She's also used it in the entranceway of every room in the dungeon she's in, and gotten an inkling of who she's going to be up against as a result. It hasn't broken the game somehow, and spamming detect evil wouldn't either.

Sartharina
2014-08-25, 12:28 AM
Clerics don't want to do this to everyone: It's obvious, and burns through spell slots.
However, Paladins are expected to do so - but they should also know how Evil works in their setting (Whether it means "Oh gods this guy's a horrible horrible person who needs immediate intervention!" or merely "a kinda mean guy without redeeming qualities"), and react to the information accordingly (And understand that being TOO rough on evil people in the latter situation can be the greater of two evils).

I do think a Paladin has a duty to alignment-check everyone - taking someone at their face value (What? Saint Brightshine the Gloriously Benevolent is actually a backstabbing Evil Overlord feeding souls to the Demon Prince Asmodeus?!) can have horrific consequences.

Mr Beer
2014-08-25, 12:33 AM
I'm not seeing anything here that would reasonably stop a smart cleric or paladin with a good Bluff score from spamming detect evil. In fact, I'm starting to think they'd have to be an idiot not to spam it.

What matters more than my opinion or yours, is what the GM thinks and how they will respond to your actions. If you think it's a great idea and that they will be fine with it, sure go ahead.

PersonMan
2014-08-25, 04:20 AM
starts muttering in a language they don't know


A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice.

True, RAW you don't need to speak it loudly, but it's pretty clear that you're not supposed to be able to just go off into a corner and whisper your verbal components.

Slipperychicken
2014-08-25, 05:16 AM
So, how many games actually use Spellcraft DCs to identify spells, and roleplay verbal and somatic components? Most of the campaigns I've seen seem to act as if spellcasting was undetectable, and that magic-users can get away with things like casting Fireball and Dominate Person in public without anyone noticing who did it.

Also, such ideas about privacy are pretty modern. I'd imagine the ignorant, suspicious peasants of the danger-filled D&D middle ages would just want someone to take down the evildoers first and foremost.

Additionally, the Cleric could simply cast Detect Evil in private, then walk outside while maintaining concentration. That makes it a lot harder for anyone to tell what he's doing.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 08:44 AM
So, how many games actually use Spellcraft DCs to identify spells, and roleplay verbal and somatic components? Most of the campaigns I've seen seem to act as if spellcasting was undetectable, and that magic-users can get away with things like casting Fireball and Dominate Person in public without anyone noticing who did it.

Every campaign I've been in. With the exception of casters who've taken steps to prevent this.



Also, such ideas about privacy are pretty modern. I'd imagine the ignorant, suspicious peasants of the danger-filled D&D middle ages would just want someone to take down the evildoers first and foremost.

I expect that if there was a 1 in 3 chance of them being arrested or detained or otherwise inconvenienced they might have a different tune.



Additionally, the Cleric could simply cast Detect Evil in private, then walk outside while maintaining concentration. That makes it a lot harder for anyone to tell what he's doing.

True, but still it wouldn't really be news to him, a Cleric should know that Evil is prevalent on a small scale, and not necessarily be able to do anything about the particular evil in a small village.

Kalmageddon
2014-08-25, 09:15 AM
Clerics don't want to do this to everyone: It's obvious, and burns through spell slots.
However, Paladins are expected to do so - but they should also know how Evil works in their setting (Whether it means "Oh gods this guy's a horrible horrible person who needs immediate intervention!" or merely "a kinda mean guy without redeeming qualities"), and react to the information accordingly (And understand that being TOO rough on evil people in the latter situation can be the greater of two evils).

I do think a Paladin has a duty to alignment-check everyone - taking someone at their face value (What? Saint Brightshine the Gloriously Benevolent is actually a backstabbing Evil Overlord feeding souls to the Demon Prince Asmodeus?!) can have horrific consequences.

So in your games the Paladin has to keep checking everyone's alignment all the time or he will fall? Makes sense. *facepalm*

AMFV
2014-08-25, 09:19 AM
So in your games the Paladin has to keep checking everyone's alignment all the time or he will fall? Makes sense. *facepalm*

Well technically failing in your duty doesn't constitute a gross violation of the Paladin's Code, it's at best a minor one.

Mastikator
2014-08-25, 09:31 AM
So in your games the Paladin has to keep checking everyone's alignment all the time or he will fall? Makes sense. *facepalm*

Spending 18 seconds out of a day and/or when entering a new area isn't too much to ask for, costs the paladin nothing and would in most situations tip the paladin off if there's something to worry about/intervene/keep a close eye on. "Being evil" isn't a crime, so no matter how you cut it if someone dings then you can't just go medieval on their ass without further investigation, unless you got some kind of "007 license to kill"/"Judge Dredd I am the law" deal with the authorities, but investigating them on the suspicion of crime isn't a crime either.

Basically yes. Whenever you enter a town, a neighborhood, a room/place with influential people, use Detect Magic. It's an "at will" ability because you're supposed to use it more than a wizard uses cantrips.

Prince Raven
2014-08-25, 09:49 AM
In my games magic is not subtle and attacking someone just because they detect as evil warrants an alignment check.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 09:55 AM
In my games magic is not subtle and attacking someone just because they detect as evil warrants an alignment check.

This certainly makes sense: "Being Evil" isn't worthy of getting smote by a Paladin (no crimes there), and something that pings as Evil isn't necessarily beyond redemption.

Slipperychicken
2014-08-25, 11:04 AM
This certainly makes sense: "Being Evil" isn't worthy of getting smote by a Paladin (no crimes there), and something that pings as Evil isn't necessarily beyond redemption.

Even if the Paladin isn't allowed to personally smite on sight, he could hand his findings over to the local law enforcement. That information could prove invaluable in investigations, employment decisions (hmm do we really want the Chaotic Evil guy as captain of the guard?), or even save lives.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 11:39 AM
Even if the Paladin isn't allowed to personally smite on sight, he could hand his findings over to the local law enforcement. That information could prove invaluable in investigations, employment decisions (hmm do we really want the Chaotic Evil guy as captain of the guard?), or even save lives.

The Paladin can't tell if he's Chaotic though... So he could be lawful Evil, and a Lawful Evil captain of the guard could be fine. I'm not sure how I feel about Law Enforcement going out of their way to investigate people who have committed no crimes. After all one does not need to violate the laws to be evil, or to have committed grossly evil acts. As far as good societies go we have three options.

1.) An LG society. While an LG society probably doesn't have the same beliefs about personal freedom and liberty that we possess today. They will have a very strict reading on the idea of due process. And putting somebody under scrutiny, even with magical surveillance is a huge resource and time expenditure. Probably not worth the time and effort it would involve in most cases, as Evil people are capable of being functional members of society. An LG society would consider it acceptable to use scanning to determine threats if investigating a crowd though, or might consider it appropriate to use in employment decisions, although that may not always be the case. They wouldn't however consider it worthwhile to use to start investigations.

2.) An CG society, would value personal freedom much to much to allow detecting evil to be used as a criteria for employment or for much else. They might not even allow the use of detect Evil in public. Because it is a violation of somebody's privacy. Now CG Police are actually more likely to investigate random tips (since they value hunches and the like) but not enough to make going around detecting Evil a valuable and worthwhile enterprise. They are also likely to have much less stringent legal procedure rules and therefore might be more willing to accept that sort of evidence regardless of their feelings on personal Freedom.

3.) An NG society would be interested in some level on knowing who the Good and Evil people are. But mostly so that it can help those who are Evil. NG is defined by compassion and to be compassionate one cannot be pre-judging people, as a result you might have Detect Evil being used to give tips to the local clergy so that they can proselytize, but not so much as a legal recourse.

Now these aren't absolute, but I imagine that these would be the overall trends. All other societies would probably think of the idea of using the Good-Evil axis to determine loyalty and propensity for crime as at best "quaint".

Red Fel
2014-08-25, 12:00 PM
The Paladin can't tell if he's Chaotic though... So he could be lawful Evil, and a Lawful Evil captain of the guard could be fine. I'm not sure how I feel about Law Enforcement going out of their way to investigate people who have committed no crimes. After all one does not need to violate the laws to be evil, or to have committed grossly evil acts. As far as good societies go we have three options.

1.) An LG society. While an LG society probably doesn't have the same beliefs about personal freedom and liberty that we possess today. They will have a very strict reading on the idea of due process. And putting somebody under scrutiny, even with magical surveillance is a huge resource and time expenditure. Probably not worth the time and effort it would involve in most cases, as Evil people are capable of being functional members of society. An LG society would consider it acceptable to use scanning to determine threats if investigating a crowd though, or might consider it appropriate to use in employment decisions, although that may not always be the case. They wouldn't however consider it worthwhile to use to start investigations.

2.) An CG society, would value personal freedom much to much to allow detecting evil to be used as a criteria for employment or for much else. They might not even allow the use of detect Evil in public. Because it is a violation of somebody's privacy. Now CG Police are actually more likely to investigate random tips (since they value hunches and the like) but not enough to make going around detecting Evil a valuable and worthwhile enterprise. They are also likely to have much less stringent legal procedure rules and therefore might be more willing to accept that sort of evidence regardless of their feelings on personal Freedom.

3.) An NG society would be interested in some level on knowing who the Good and Evil people are. But mostly so that it can help those who are Evil. NG is defined by compassion and to be compassionate one cannot be pre-judging people, as a result you might have Detect Evil being used to give tips to the local clergy so that they can proselytize, but not so much as a legal recourse.

See, I could go the opposite direction. I could easily see an LG society with a benevolent Big Brother figure, with the concept of personal privacy and freedom basically going out the window as long as it serves the public good; as such, the concept of "due process" would be completely fine with the results of unauthorized Detect spells, because all Evil must be rooted out post-haste. By contrast, I could easily see a CG society having such an aversion to the invasion of personal autonomy caused by a Detect spell that they might not accept any evidence resulting from such a source. And I could see an NG society being so anti-Evil that they'd be almost as likely to spam Detect Evil as the spam-happy Cleric/Paladin in the OP.

Note that I say I could go that way, and could see it. Alignments are nuanced like that; it's hard to call them explicitly one thing or another. (Exception: Evil. Evil is always awesome.) The point is, I don't think there's a hard-and-fast rule, even based upon alignment, that says whether the use of Detect Evil is creepy, rude, or illegal, or whether the fruit of such a spell is admissible for the purpose of rummaging through a person's home looking for signs of Asmodeus.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 12:56 PM
See, I could go the opposite direction. I could easily see an LG society with a benevolent Big Brother figure, with the concept of personal privacy and freedom basically going out the window as long as it serves the public good; as such, the concept of "due process" would be completely fine with the results of unauthorized Detect spells, because all Evil must be rooted out post-haste. By contrast, I could easily see a CG society having such an aversion to the invasion of personal autonomy caused by a Detect spell that they might not accept any evidence resulting from such a source. And I could see an NG society being so anti-Evil that they'd be almost as likely to spam Detect Evil as the spam-happy Cleric/Paladin in the OP.

True, I concede that as well. I should have been more clear that I was seeing other alternatives. Although it's rare to have LG societies that are so intense that they ban all evil, altogether, simply because it's generally not feasible (1/3 of all humans being Evil), so that would require frequent banishment, separation of families, and eventually you'd run up against there being Evil involved in that process itself.

Sartharina
2014-08-25, 02:01 PM
So in your games the Paladin has to keep checking everyone's alignment all the time or he will fall? Makes sense. *facepalm*No, it's not a Fall. I was referring to Duty in a Party Obligation, not Moral Obligation, sense.
The Paladin can't tell if he's Chaotic though... So he could be lawful Evil, and a Lawful Evil captain of the guard could be fine. Have you seen Hot Fuzz? If so, can you really say that anyone with an E in their alignment can morally belong in society?
Most societies use Law as a means to an end to combat Evil.

Slipperychicken
2014-08-25, 04:25 PM
I was mostly thinking about authorities using alignment in tandem with other information. So if the authorities have a short list of suspects for an arson, but only one or two if those are Chaotic or Evil, that could help focus the investigation. I hadn't thought about reforming these people, so we could use the BoED rules for alignment change via diplomacy: bring in any evil folk, talk to them until they stop pinging detect evil, then let them go with occasional quick check-ups to make sure they didn't revert to evilness.

I can also see the huge potential for abuse ("Guy's C.E., but has no charges listed, so let's raid his place to see what he's hiding"), which is one reason why a cleric might to avoid it. If it was a common practice, that might further marginalize chaotic and evil people, since they're reluctant to talk to clergymen for fear of being outed.

Although personally, if there was a 100% effective (no false positives) way to objectively determine whether someone is a bad or good person, which can be used for free, takes less than a minute, and can help catch folks like demons and doppelgangers? I'd be all for it.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 06:25 PM
Most societies use Law as a means to an end to combat Evil.

Thay, 1984, The Empire, the society in We, Equillibrium, and dozens of others would like a word with you.

Aedilred
2014-08-25, 06:45 PM
If I was the GM I would discourage this behaviour:

1. You would discover a lot of plot-irrelevant evil people i.e. would get so much information it becomes irrelevant.

2. People would notice you casting spells and get annoyed.

3. Powerful people would get dangerously annoyed when you invade their privacy like this.

4. Plot relevant evil people would often take precautions.

5. You will mislead yourself. The secret bad guy is not evil, the fake secret bad guy is evil. You just fell into your own trap, such irony.

I had a player (Paladin) who spammed Detect Evil on literally every organism the party encountered. For the first few sessions I did petty much all the above, although he still didn't quite get the hint. I would have thought the point at which he spotted an evil marmot would have put a stop to it, but no, he slew the evil marmot and continued on his way.

The next time the party moved somewhere else in the world, it just so happened that amulets of undetectable alignment were both dirt cheap and worn by anyone of any importance.

Eventually he fell after the party charged into a random village and started hacking about the occupants on the assumption they were the enemy. I don't think he was really cut out to be a paladin - which, to be fair, I had seen coming given some of his previous characters.

Ettina
2014-08-25, 06:57 PM
This certainly makes sense: "Being Evil" isn't worthy of getting smote by a Paladin (no crimes there), and something that pings as Evil isn't necessarily beyond redemption.

My character wouldn't smite all Evil characters, just keep in mind that this character is probably up to no good in some way or another. Doesn't mean they're irredeemable, or an active threat, or not a valuable ally. I'm not thinking of a 'Lawful Stupid' type here. I'm thinking of a character with high Int and Wis, who puts a lot of stock in 'forewarned is forearmed'. Good doesn't have to mean naive.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 06:59 PM
My character wouldn't smite all Evil characters, just keep in mind that this character is probably up to no good in some way or another. Doesn't mean they're irredeemable, or an active threat, or not a valuable ally. I'm not thinking of a 'Lawful Stupid' type here. I'm thinking of a character with high Int and Wis, who puts a lot of stock in 'forewarned is forearmed'. Good doesn't have to mean naive.

Well I'm certainly not saying that it's always a bad thing (depending on how much focus it takes). What I was saying is that the prevalence of Evil is likely known to any character who can cast Detect Evil and that insanity or some kind of shock is probably unlikely. Also that Detect Evil may or may not be lawfully actionable.

icefractal
2014-08-25, 07:09 PM
I guess it depends on what "evil" mean in your campaign. I think a lot of posts here are going off a relatively even distribution of alignment - i.e., the worst 1/3rd of society counts as "evil", so it doesn't necessarily mean being all that bad; they might just be selfish or something. In which case, going all smite-happy on their ass, or even harassing them, is probably inappropriate.

Personally though, I go with a bit of a different spin. A significant majority of people are neutral. To be evil, you have to be noticeably bad. Bad enough that if you knew the reason someone was evil, you wouldn't want to be their friend any more. Or maybe even be in the same room with them. In that context, things sound a little different:

"I'm so glad we kicked that Paladin out of town. What a jerk!"
"I know! He kept glaring at Bob the Loan Shark, just because he cuts off people's fingers for non-payment and manipulates them into debt slavery. Even tried to get him arrested - so rude!"
"I heard he practically started a fight with the captain of the guard. Said that accepting bribes for murder and extorting people for sexual favors was 'unacceptable'. The gall of some people!"

Obviously YMMV, but if "evil" actually means, well, evil, then taking steps to be on guard for it, and taking steps as a result, doesn't sound so unreasonable.

BeerMug Paladin
2014-08-25, 07:42 PM
I don't think evil should be as prevalent as a third of the society. Evil people could be relatively few, with some in positions of power, and promote others who share their view on things to prominent positions. I agree that the majority ought to be neutral.

The only thing that makes an evil character actually harmful is when they have the opportunity and motivation to do harm. For this reason, I don't think it's really justified for a good character to go around chasing them and investigating their actions on that fact alone.

For example, an evil character, of any intelligence and wisdom score, could simply believe that actually doing an evil action will be impossible to cover up and would eventually lead to their capture. It's not unreasonable to think that someone could be evil without ever doing evil things.

Good, essentially, requires that people are given the benefit of the doubt. And I think, that includes them treating a random evil person just as they would treat a random someone who's neutral or good.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 07:51 PM
I don't think evil should be as prevalent as a third of the society. Evil people could be relatively few, with some in positions of power, and promote others who share their view on things to prominent positions. I agree that the majority ought to be neutral.

The only thing that makes an evil character actually harmful is when they have the opportunity and motivation to do harm. For this reason, I don't think it's really justified for a good character to go around chasing them and investigating their actions on that fact alone.

For example, an evil character, of any intelligence and wisdom score, could simply believe that actually doing an evil action will be impossible to cover up and would eventually lead to their capture. It's not unreasonable to think that someone could be evil without ever doing evil things.

Good, essentially, requires that people are given the benefit of the doubt. And I think, that includes them treating a random evil person just as they would treat a random someone who's neutral or good.

But in D&D at least, and in 3.5 and PF it is 1/3 of the society. If you're doing something different you are using a variant rule and we can discuss but it is not what it is assumed in the system. Spamming detect evil in a variant society like that would have very different implications.

icefractal
2014-08-25, 07:57 PM
The only thing that makes an evil character actually harmful is when they have the opportunity and motivation to do harm. For this reason, I don't think it's really justified for a good character to go around chasing them and investigating their actions on that fact alone.Whether someone can be evil without ever taking any evil action is something that should be decided, yeah. And something that the Paladin should know.

But even in that case ... You can't pre-emptively shank them, sure. You can't be suspicious of them? I don't know about that. We're talking about someone who would do bad things - again, bad enough that people wouldn't want to be around them - if they had the opportunity to. I don't know if that's something you should just discount. I mean, would you want someone who (non-joking) said, "Man, I'd love to be a serial killer, I really wonder what people taste like. But the police and FBI would totally catch me, so I decided not to." staying in your home?

It feels a bit like "we must be tolerant of intolerance", is what I'm saying.

icefractal
2014-08-25, 07:59 PM
But in D&D at least, and in 3.5 and PF it is 1/3 of the society. If you're doing something different you are using a variant rule and we can discuss but it is not what it is assumed in the system. Spamming detect evil in a variant society like that would have very different implications.Got a page number for that? I'm curious, because I don't remember reading anything that gave a specific ratio.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 08:08 PM
Got a page number for that? I'm curious, because I don't remember reading anything that gave a specific ratio.

It's the section on Humans and Alignment in the DMG, "Humans are drawn to no particular alignment not even neutral" for that to be true they have to be pretty evenly distributed across them if what you're saying is true that would be mistaken.

icefractal
2014-08-25, 08:11 PM
Ah. I read that as "Humans are no more likely to be neutral than other races are." Which would be true either way. Also, of course, there's Law/Chaos, which might well have a more even distribution. Honestly, Law/Chaos are somewhat poorly defined, so I don't have much opinion on what their distribution should be.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 08:24 PM
Ah. I read that as "Humans are no more likely to be neutral than other races are." Which would be true either way. Also, of course, there's Law/Chaos, which might well have a more even distribution. Honestly, Law/Chaos are somewhat poorly defined, so I don't have much opinion on what their distribution should be.

Well it depends fundamentally if your actions alone define your alignment, and neutral actions (survival for it's own sake) counts, then there should be a lot of neutral people. But that's not the only model. If your actions alone define your alignment and neutrality is an absence of a strong pull one way or the other then it's likely that there will be people all over the alignment. If some other combination of action and behavioral thought controls alignment then it will be distributed differently.

Sartharina
2014-08-25, 08:36 PM
Thay, 1984, The Empire, the society in We, Equillibrium, and dozens of others would like a word with you.Those societies are not on good terms with anyone Good, and anyone LN is likely to go all Nicholas Angel on them.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 08:39 PM
Those societies are not on good terms with anyone Good, and anyone LN is likely to go all Nicholas Angel on them.

We was certainly a lawful society. As was, ostensibly, the Empire. And many other societies. Lawfulness is not the antithesis of Evil, Lawfulness is the antithesis of unlawfulness.

Prince Raven
2014-08-25, 08:46 PM
I had a player (Paladin) who spammed Detect Evil on literally every organism the party encountered. For the first few sessions I did petty much all the above, although he still didn't quite get the hint. I would have thought the point at which he spotted an evil marmot would have put a stop to it, but no, he slew the evil marmot and continued on his way.

The next time the party moved somewhere else in the world, it just so happened that amulets of undetectable alignment were both dirt cheap and worn by anyone of any importance.

Eventually he fell after the party charged into a random village and started hacking about the occupants on the assumption they were the enemy. I don't think he was really cut out to be a paladin - which, to be fair, I had seen coming given some of his previous characters.

What I wonder is why it took him that long to fall.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 08:48 PM
What I wonder is why it took him that long to fall.

Paladin's Parachute (TM)

Jay R
2014-08-25, 09:03 PM
"That evil man attacked me with some sort of spell. Of course I stabbed him."

icefractal
2014-08-25, 09:50 PM
I had a player (Paladin) who spammed Detect Evil on literally every organism the party encountered. For the first few sessions I did petty much all the above, although he still didn't quite get the hint. I would have thought the point at which he spotted an evil marmot would have put a stop to it, but no, he slew the evil marmot and continued on his way.

The next time the party moved somewhere else in the world, it just so happened that amulets of undetectable alignment were both dirt cheap and worn by anyone of any importance. This brings up something I wonder about - why do people have a problem with Paladins doing this, and an urge to block it?

Is it because it slows things down? But it seems like that could be solved very easily, just add it into the description - "You encounter a group of three dwarves traveling the road in the opposite direction. From their clothes, they look like merchants. (To the paladin) Two of them are radiating moderate evil."

Is it because people take it as an excuse to smite everyone, and that's not a reasonable course of action? Then just tell the player that. Paladins literally aren't allowed to be murder-hobos. :smallamused:

Or is it because the DM wants to use plots that would be spoiled by the party knowing who's evil at first glance? In that case, it seems like the right course of action is to house-rule Detect Evil out (or make it more difficult) and give the Paladin some kind of other ability instead.

Prince Raven
2014-08-25, 10:06 PM
Because the Paladin going off on a meaningless investigation into why random NPC #357 detects as evil is a waste of everyone's time.

Aedilred
2014-08-25, 10:13 PM
It's the section on Humans and Alignment in the DMG, "Humans are drawn to no particular alignment not even neutral" for that to be true they have to be pretty evenly distributed across them if what you're saying is true that would be mistaken.
That's the PHB, isn't it? Although it later in the section on alignment gives Neutral as the typical alignment for humans (p.104).



This brings up something I wonder about - why do people have a problem with Paladins doing this, and an urge to block it?

Is it because it slows things down? But it seems like that could be solved very easily, just add it into the description - "You encounter a group of three dwarves traveling the road in the opposite direction. From their clothes, they look like merchants. (To the paladin) Two of them are radiating moderate evil."

Is it because people take it as an excuse to smite everyone, and that's not a reasonable course of action? Then just tell the player that. Paladins literally aren't allowed to be murder-hobos.

Or is it because the DM wants to use plots that would be spoiled by the party knowing who's evil at first glance? In that case, it seems like the right course of action is to house-rule Detect Evil out (or make it more difficult) and give the Paladin some kind of other ability instead.

Basically all of the above, although as regards "slows things down" it's not so much the time it takes to tell the Paladin that a given NPC is evil, so much as that having determined a given NPC is evil the Paladin wants to find out what they're doing that's so evil so that they can legitimately smite them bring them to justice, and that slows things down.

House-ruling Detect Evil out is one option, and one I might go with in future, but if it's the first time you come across it, and you've identified it as a problem with a given player partway through a campagin, it's always harder to rule out one of their favourite class features after they've been happily using it for a while.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 10:21 PM
That's the PHB, isn't it? Although it later in the section on alignment gives Neutral as the typical alignment for humans (p.104).

You could be right, I'll admit I'm not completely sure. I thought it was in the demographics section of the DMG. In any case the point remains that it's important to discuss how alignment works in your setting before discussing the alignment issues.



Basically all of the above, although as regards "slows things down" it's not so much the time it takes to tell the Paladin that a given NPC is evil, so much as that having determined a given NPC is evil the Paladin wants to find out what they're doing that's so evil so that they can legitimately smite them bring them to justice, and that slows things down.

House-ruling Detect Evil out is one option, and one I might go with in future, but if it's the first time you come across it, and you've identified it as a problem with a given player partway through a campagin, it's always harder to rule out one of their favourite class features after they've been happily using it for a while.

Well I would probably give them evil things that are inconsequential. Not all Evil things are smiteworthy. Somebody could be Evil because they are just impolite and cruel to people.

Aedilred
2014-08-25, 10:41 PM
Well I would probably give them evil things that are inconsequential. Not all Evil things are smiteworthy. Somebody could be Evil because they are just impolite and cruel to people.
Oh, I did. Hence the evil marmots. The party was walking through some mountains.

"What is there here?"
"Mountains"
"Anything more specific?"
"Sure, there are some marmots off to one side of the pass."
"Detect evil."
"Seriously?"
"Yes."
"OK. <sarcastic voice> One of the marmots is evil."
"I smite the marmot".
"..."

Like I say, he wasn't really cut out to play a Paladin, which I did try to impress upon him. But after a while the Detect Evil was just getting in the way, firstly of what the other players wanted to do, and secondly of some of the plots I had lined up involving friendly but evil NPCs (and, indeed, once the Amulets of UA were in play, the party really enjoyed those plots). As far as he was concerned, though, Detect Evil was a useful tool, there wasn't a good enough IC reason not to use it at every opportunity, and houseruling it out mid-campaign wouldn't be fair. I can kind of see his point, as well. At least the amulets, while a bit of a cheap trick on my part, were an in-game obstacle with an in-game solution.

As it happens, he was/is one of my best friends, so OOC acrimony was kept to a minimum (and I also couldn't kick him from the group even if I wanted to) and had I thought things through a bit more I'd have tried to find him a character more suited both to the way he tends to play and to the campaign. It was actually kind of funny - the rest of the party were somewhere around the deep end of neutral: their mercenary tendencies were some of their more appealing traits - and you had this clueless Paladin who didn't know what he was doing trying to lead them. For all that he Detected Evil on any rodent that crossed his path, I don't think he ever actually scanned another party member.

Prince Raven
2014-08-25, 11:00 PM
Oh, I did. Hence the evil marmots. The party was walking through some mountains.

"What is there here?"
"Mountains"
"Anything more specific?"
"Sure, there are some marmots off to one side of the pass."
"Detect evil."
"Seriously?"
"Yes."
"OK. <sarcastic voice> One of the marmots is evil."
"I smite the marmot".
"..."

In my game it is at this point that Detect Evil would no longer be an issue, as the Paladin has fallen.

AMFV
2014-08-25, 11:01 PM
Oh, I did. Hence the evil marmots. The party was walking through some mountains.

"What is there here?"
"Mountains"
"Anything more specific?"
"Sure, there are some marmots off to one side of the pass."
"Detect evil."
"Seriously?"
"Yes."
"OK. <sarcastic voice> One of the marmots is evil."
"I smite the marmot".
"..."

You did miss the opportunity to have it be a Shapechanged Ancient Red Dragon with a thing for Marmots... Which could have been pretty hilarious.

Slipperychicken
2014-08-26, 05:06 PM
You know that animals don't have alignments, right? Unless they're intelligent, in which case they automatically gain the "magical beast" type instead of Animal.

AMFV
2014-08-26, 05:14 PM
You know that animals don't have alignments, right? Unless they're intelligent, in which case they automatically gain the "magical beast" type instead of Animal.

That is actually factually incorrect in both 3.5 and Pathfinder. In 4E (I believe) and AD&D that is correct.

Edit: Also of note, if it was an Ancient Red Dragon in disguise because it had a thing for Marmots it would retain it's alignment.

Psyren
2014-08-26, 05:30 PM
The point of the Paladin getting it is so that they can solve crimes, nudge those around them back towards the path of righteousness, and avoid working with evildoers and inadvertently falling. It is NOT for Minority Report-style profiling and running through shady merchants or even corrupt guards on the street corner.

In other words, being able to detect morality of any kind places a strong responsibility on you. Do you denounce your target on the spot? Blare their secrets from the rooftops? Is that more or less likely to turn them from a dark road they may be stumbling down? Do you shun them entirely and refuse to learn why, blind to those they may hurt, including themselves?

If a good paladin (and I mean both "morally upright" and "competent" when I say that), detects someone as evil and is not engaged in a more urgent cause, s/he should be getting close to that individual to find out what is going on with them. Seeking to redeem them, not judge and execute or ostracize on the spot. This is compounded if the Paladin is required to work with or for such an individual to accomplish a greater objective - s/he should be seeking to minimize or subvert any attempts by that individual to commit evil acts during their association whether they are aware of it or not.

Violence and condemnation should be the last resort to a Paladin, not the first.

Slipperychicken
2014-08-26, 05:37 PM
That is actually factually incorrect in both 3.5 and Pathfinder. In 4E (I believe) and AD&D that is correct.

Is that so?


Animal type, in 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animalType)

Traits
An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).


Animal type, PF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/creature-types#TOC-Animal)
Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).


Magical Beast, PF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts)

Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2 (in which case the magical beast knows at least one language, but can't necessarily speak). Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but are sometimes merely bizarre in appearance or habits.


Magical Beast type, 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#magicalBeastType)

Magical Beast Type
Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2. Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but sometimes are merely bizarre in appearance or habits.


EDIT (Ninja Edit #2)

3.5 alignment
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.



PF alignment (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules)

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

There's also language in both games' Awaken Animal spells about intelligent animals becoming magical beasts. I can link that too if you'd like.

AMFV
2014-08-26, 05:42 PM
Is that so?


There's also language in both games' Awaken Animal spells about intelligent animals becoming magical beasts. I can link that too if you'd like.

I wasn't talking about the animals with intelligence below 2, I was talking about the low intelligence producing no alignment.


Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.


Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

Neutral != Unaligned. Neutral is an alignment. Also Animal companions who gain an intelligence of three or higher in Pathfinder remain animals, so there are exceptions to that rule as well. Lastly you can add templates that will alter an animal's alignment which may alter it's type, but the Paladin wouldn't have known that. A corrupted Marmot, might be hard to tell from a regular Marmot, depending. And again a Red Dragon trying to get some with Marmots (Dragons are pretty open to lots of stuff) would look exactly like a Marmot.

Slipperychicken
2014-08-26, 05:49 PM
Neutral != Unaligned.

Yeah, you're right on that one.

AMFV
2014-08-26, 05:51 PM
Yeah, you're right on that one.

Although an animal that pinged as Evil would be much more likely to be investigated by me, since that's abnormal whereas a human pinging as Evil is pretty standard. And things that are out of the ordinary usually merit some investigation. I mean there could be something corrupting things in the forest, or what-not.

BeerMug Paladin
2014-08-26, 07:25 PM
But in D&D at least, and in 3.5 and PF it is 1/3 of the society. If you're doing something different you are using a variant rule and we can discuss but it is not what it is assumed in the system. Spamming detect evil in a variant society like that would have very different implications.
I don't run the rulebooks as simulation tomes. I take what's convenient for story and setting first, and what seems like a realistic application of the rules second. I also make that statement based partly on games I actually play in.

The thing is, a largely neutral society makes the villains more villainous and the heroes more heroic. It makes the game world more compelling as a general rule because it provides a better backdrop for making the player's decisions matter.

Although the following would be funny to pull on an unexpecting gaming group.

As you slog along the wet cobblestone pathways making your way back to the inn, you hear a piercing scream, like a screeching owl in the night. It sounds like it came from close by, around the next corner perhaps.

"We run around the corner, weapons drawn!"

You charge forwards, leaving your slower companion lagging behind by several seconds. As you round the corner you see almost a dozen shadowy figures, their arms raised with weapons or spells readied. You witness a tense look in one obvious spellcaster's eyes as he whirls around and fixes a nervous gaze upon your party. Four of them are crouched close by to a slumped figure on the ground.

"Get closer to them, get ready to fight!"

Everyone is keeping their distance as a tension in the air looks to indicate a fight is going to break out. As you approach, you make out the voice of a woman clad in imposing, heavy armor. She is confronting another one of the figures close by. As another armored companion is hunched over the motionless figure on the ground. She says to the person she is confronting. "We were here first. This quest is ours."

"..."

As your slower companion rejoins you, another figure becomes visible in a nearby alleyway, wreathed in shadows. After a few moments of excited observation, you hear her speaking in a whisper a little too loudly to someone else nearby, "Oh man, I knew I should have prepared expeditious retreat today! There's like four other groups here already!"


Whether someone can be evil without ever taking any evil action is something that should be decided, yeah. And something that the Paladin should know.
Alignment denotes basic moral outlook, not actions taken. So of course you can be evil without actually doing evil things. Of course different DMs might have a different answer for that, so it would be best to ask them about that just to clarify things.

I'd probably place the specific knowledge of that factoid in knowledge (religion), DC 15 or less. But I don't think that's ever really come up in a game.

But even in that case ... You can't pre-emptively shank them, sure. You can't be suspicious of them? I don't know about that. We're talking about someone who would do bad things - again, bad enough that people wouldn't want to be around them - if they had the opportunity to. I don't know if that's something you should just discount. I mean, would you want someone who (non-joking) said, "Man, I'd love to be a serial killer, I really wonder what people taste like. But the police and FBI would totally catch me, so I decided not to." staying in your home?

It feels a bit like "we must be tolerant of intolerance", is what I'm saying.
Actually yeah. I'll freely admit there's a bit of a paradox there. But I'd say it's the same sort of paradox where having freedom of speech in a society means that you'll have people saying some pretty awful things. The right thing is often a balancing act. It's not easy.

I was speaking mostly about using evil-detection as a basis for determining who's worthy of being investigated for crimes. As I argued before, it alone is not a reason to think someone actually has done an evil action. Let alone a specific one that is being investigated.

It would be interesting to have a lawful neutral society where the primary law enforcers use detect evil to get suspects. Then have the player party get to see how flimsy a case could be, and still get hashed out as a guilty verdict in this method of justice seeking.

Sartharina
2014-08-26, 07:45 PM
Like I say, he wasn't really cut out to play a Paladin, which I did try to impress upon him. But after a while the Detect Evil was just getting in the way, firstly of what the other players wanted to do, and secondly of some of the plots I had lined up involving friendly but evil NPCs (and, indeed, once the Amulets of UA were in play, the party really enjoyed those plots). As far as he was concerned, though, Detect Evil was a useful tool, there wasn't a good enough IC reason not to use it at every opportunity, and houseruling it out mid-campaign wouldn't be fair. I can kind of see his point, as well. At least the amulets, while a bit of a cheap trick on my part, were an in-game obstacle with an in-game solution.

As it happens, he was/is one of my best friends, so OOC acrimony was kept to a minimum (and I also couldn't kick him from the group even if I wanted to) and had I thought things through a bit more I'd have tried to find him a character more suited both to the way he tends to play and to the campaign. It was actually kind of funny - the rest of the party were somewhere around the deep end of neutral: their mercenary tendencies were some of their more appealing traits - and you had this clueless Paladin who didn't know what he was doing trying to lead them. For all that he Detected Evil on any rodent that crossed his path, I don't think he ever actually scanned another party member.The problem I'm seeing here is on You for making such plots in the first place with a Paladin in the party. If you want to run a campaign with 'friendly neighborhood Evil Overlords", it's generally not a good idea to have someone who's sworn to fight Evil in the party - Even if the Paladin isn't Smitehappy, no self-respecting Paladin would ever want to work under/for an Evil person. He'd try to oppose whatever schemes the evil person is going for (because Evil is something that needs to be stopped, by definition). Most are interested in saying "No" to "Bwahaha! You have all been duped by my secretly-treacherous villain-as-best friend!" plots.

AMFV
2014-08-26, 07:49 PM
The problem I'm seeing here is on You for making such plots in the first place with a Paladin in the party. If you want to run a campaign with 'friendly neighborhood Evil Overlords", it's generally not a good idea to have someone who's sworn to fight Evil in the party - Even if the Paladin isn't Smitehappy, no self-respecting Paladin would ever want to work under/for an Evil person. He'd try to oppose whatever schemes the evil person is going for (because Evil is something that needs to be stopped, by definition). Most are interested in saying "No" to "Bwahaha! You have all been duped by my secretly-treacherous villain-as-best friend!" plots.

Well it's really easy to hide your alignment. Like really easy. Like 2nd Level Spell easy, and if you want to disguise your alignment, then Planar Motes are cheap too. Wait, 1st level spell easy.

TheCountAlucard
2014-08-27, 11:56 AM
I was speaking mostly about using evil-detection as a basis for determining who's worthy of being investigated for crimes. As I argued before, it alone is not a reason to think someone actually has done an evil action. Let alone a specific one that is being investigated.That's assuming all evil acts are against the law in the first place, which may not necessarily be true.

Aedilred
2014-08-27, 11:59 AM
The problem I'm seeing here is on You for making such plots in the first place with a Paladin in the party. If you want to run a campaign with 'friendly neighborhood Evil Overlords", it's generally not a good idea to have someone who's sworn to fight Evil in the party - Even if the Paladin isn't Smitehappy, no self-respecting Paladin would ever want to work under/for an Evil person. He'd try to oppose whatever schemes the evil person is going for (because Evil is something that needs to be stopped, by definition). Most are interested in saying "No" to "Bwahaha! You have all been duped by my secretly-treacherous villain-as-best friend!" plots.

I'm not really interested in delving into the details of a campaign I ran eight years ago, but the problems with it from what perspective were that he had no idea how to play a paladin, and that I let him play a paladin in the first place - although with that group the GM had never previously been the class police, and vetoing classes didn't really happen. In retrospect that was a mistake, but sometimes you have to make mistakes to learn your lesson.

As I mentioned, too, his portrayal of a paladin didn't just cause problems for the plots I wanted to run: it caused problems for the plots, and characters, the other five players wanted to play - and had the paladin been more clued-up it would have been even worse than it was.

The spamming detect evil was just a small part of the many ways he failed at paladining.

Sartharina
2014-08-27, 12:06 PM
That's assuming all evil acts are against the law in the first place, which may not necessarily be true.If they aren't, you have a very ****ty law system.

AMFV
2014-08-27, 12:24 PM
If they aren't, you have a very ****ty law system.

Not necessarily. Evil Acts can be minute things, things like insulting your parents or insulting somebody to make yourself better. Taking the last piece of Pizza because you feel that you deserve it more than everybody else. Not being honest when you're asked about how much you give to charity. Anything that puts your needs over those of others is a little bit evil, if it winds up depriving others in the process.

Aedilred
2014-08-27, 01:14 PM
Indeed. While most legal systems have a moral element, it's not necessarily the driving force, and generally more important is maintaining the fabric of society. Theft isn't a problem to the government because it's morally wrong, but because the people need to have confidence that their property rights will be respected. Murder, likewise, because allowing your citizens to be killed is a good way to reduce productivity and increase instability. Even Evil governments will often have laws prohibiting things like theft and homicide, because things just work better that way (although they might have exemptions for certain classes of people).

Conversely, high treason - usually the most serious crime in any jurisdiction - arguably isn't even immoral at all, and depending on the government in question, might be a completely Good act, but you can't let everyone try to topple the government and get away with it, for obvious reasons. There are many other crimes that could be argued to be morally neutral or even good, especially in some circumstances, but are illegal for practical reasons.

This is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Law and Good are on different alignment axes.

There's a guiding principle in law of de minimis - the law doesn't concern itself with trifles. It's just not worth the expenditure of resources, and failure to enforce some crimes through overstretching diminishes the authority of the state. Low-level evil acts will thus fly under the radar of law enforcement and indeed the legal system as a whole, by design rather than by accident, because they're not sufficiently harmful to the state as a whole, and clamping down on them is more trouble than it's worth.

A society in which all evil acts are illegal and which attempts to enforce the law in all cases will either have a trivial level of crime because its people are saints, or will collapse under the weight of its own self-righteousness.

TheCountAlucard
2014-08-27, 02:11 PM
If they aren't, you have a very ****ty law system.Aedilred said it well enough. Law and Good are on different alignment axes for a reason.

Prince Raven
2014-08-27, 09:47 PM
If they aren't, you have a very ****ty law system.

Fixed that for you.

Mr Beer
2014-08-28, 11:34 PM
Not necessarily. Evil Acts can be minute things, things like insulting your parents or insulting somebody to make yourself better. Taking the last piece of Pizza because you feel that you deserve it more than everybody else. Not being honest when you're asked about how much you give to charity. Anything that puts your needs over those of others is a little bit evil, if it winds up depriving others in the process.

Yeah agreed, a sociopath could easily be a petty vindictive douchenozzle at every opportunity while never breaking the law. In fact my understanding is that many sociopaths do exactly that, they don't necessarily have murderous or even violent tendencies.

Aedilred
2014-08-29, 12:33 PM
You did miss the opportunity to have it be a Shapechanged Ancient Red Dragon with a thing for Marmots... Which could have been pretty hilarious.
The campaign did actually include a shapechanged ancient dragon at one point, although it wasn't an antagonist; rather, after the party had monumentally screwed themselves up, they had a subquest to go and find him to petition him to fix them.

He just wasn't shapechanged into a random marmot, because that would have been both (even) silly(-ier), and a **** move on my part.

Zrak
2014-08-29, 02:27 PM
I actually played in a game with a paladin who used wish to be able to detect evil at-will, so that he might always know the righteous from the villainous and so on. The obligatory twist put on the wish was that he couldn't turn it off. At first he had a really tough time, but ended up coming around to it.