:smallsigh: Homosexuality and Detect Evil... Yeah, trust me, I know how this sounds

[Name1]

I can already hear you typing away before reading this about how bigot this is and all that. And by all means, do, I probably deserve it.

In the setting I made, Good and Evil have nothing to do with good and evil, or at least not as much as most people would believe, which led to this situation. Here is how it started:


At the beginning of the human civilization, we have the neutral Goddess of Nature, Fertility and Wealth, Detoria. Detoria basically made most, nearly all, humanoids. In the beginning, the gods didn't understand why she liked them so much, but that changed when they saw that a selected few of them were able to advance similar to their magical beasts, and that those that do gain abilities at a faster rate than their creatures (read: Humanoids had a lower ECL), so they made their own. Detoria wasn't angry about that, but encouraged it instead. The more the merrier.

Timeskip a few thousand years later. Detora became aware of a problem: Some humanoids, should they decide to breed, give birth to children with diseases that seem to have no known cause. After a bit of research, she figured out that some humanoids have sicknesses encoded in their bodies. She discovered genetic diseases. And she overreacted to it. Ok, on the top of your head, how often did your D&D characters deal with characters or monsters with genetic diseases? Not that often, right? Well, Detora thought that in a few hundred years, everyone would have a disease like that and society would collapse. So she thought of a plan: She would find out who had such a disease and make them unable to pass it on, eradicating those diseases. She could curse their charisma to 1, she could scar them and make them untouchable. Yet, she didn't want to do that. Instead she though that everyone should be able to become happy regardless of their genes. So she didn't scar them in any way, but instead changed their sexual orientation, thinking that these people would be capable of finding lovers in their situation and be happy that way, while she would remain happy because the diseases can't "run amok" anymore.

She thus, with a bit of magic, made the first homosexuals. At first, everything was going well: As soon as the genes were more likely than not to cause a genetic defect, the person that has them would become homosexual. About 3 years later, she was asked why she did what she did by one of her faithful clerics. She answered truthfully. The cleric, statisfied with the answer, went on his way, and when his fellow worshippers asked what she said, he answered. Sadly, they misinterpreted his words: While he himself understood that there was no danger in associating with them at all, or anything really wrong with them, the thing that they remembered was one single sentence. The sentence? "They are defective." That information spread like a wildfire. At that time, when you were outed as a "defective", you were in for a bad time. After Detoria became aware of what had transpired, she came down in avatar to clear up the situation. While that resulted in "defectives" not getting killed when they were outed, the people were still cautious around them and getting outed was likely to loose you a lot of respect within your society. This caused a lot of people to hide their orientation and still have children. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the point where it went from bad to worse: The children, due to a mistake in Detorias magic, would sometimes end up homosexual too. Now anyone could be "defective", no matter their actual genes. And not only that, but the diseases came back too. Those born like that were killed or hidden by their families and it was all-around a really bad time. Typical medival stuff, basically.

Detoria saw this, and she realized that she had failed and that everything she did was for nothing. In her sadness, she went silent, never to be seen again. This made the situation worse yet again, as the "defectives" were blamed again. At the end of all this, no one was the wiser, and with time, Detoria and this story were forgotten by most of the country, but deep down, the dislike still lingered.

Years later, Asmodeus came along with the pact Primeval. Now, my players know that the Good gods wanted approval over anything else. So if something squicked the followers out, it would likely end up on the Evil list. Torture? Well, effective if combied with a Zone of Truth, but people don't like the idea, so it's Evil now. Needless to say, Asmodeus went out of his way to make mortals have a lot of pet peeves like that to have his hells filled rather fast.

Now one of my players, we name him B (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500123-Dungeoooooons!!), wants to know if he can Detect Evil homosexuality, because being homosexual could reasonably be an Evil act, as the humanoids didn't like it and the Good gods want to cater to them.


Now... should I say yes or no? Normally I am rather... stubborn when it comes to taking suggestions from him, for things that have transpired in the campaign before, but he kinda has a point: If Evil is purely defined by what people approve of, and it kinda is in the campaign, wouldn't I need to make something disapproved Evil?
It wouldn't even affect anyone really: The party is generally heterosexual (even if one has a family tree with a lot of circles and intents to give it another) while B is omnisexual (men, women, children, corpses, sheep, you name it), which means that if it affects someone in the party, it would be him, and he's aware of that.


So yeah, playground. Should I let him detect it or not? As for the question of why I came up with that story to begin with... let's just say someone asked why people were homosexual in the campaign and I had to come up with something in the span of a few seconds.

[Inevitability]

You seem to have removed all universal moral truth from the concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil', so why stick to these names? Rename it to 'detect mortal disapproval' or something like that, and you can have homosexuals ping without moral issues arising.

[Khedrac]

It does come down to this:

If Evil is purely defined by what people approve of, and it kinda is in the campaign, wouldn't I need to make something disapproved Evil?

If you are defining Evil by what is approved of then yes, in a place where people disapprove of X, X is evil.

However, just because the good gods are defining "good" by approval does not mean that "good" is really defined that way. Also D&D has a clear difference between "neutral" and "good" and "evil", thus defining "good" as that which people approve of does not define "evil" to be anything not approved of. You have a small amount of wiggle room in that things not approved of can be "neutral". (Unfortunately a more logical argument is that "evil" is that which is disapproved of and "neutral" is that about which people don't care.)

What might be interesting would be to have "good" and "evil" more conventionally defined and the so-called "good" gods are actually "neutral" because they have lost sight of what is really "good"...

[Segev]

Okay. Here's the thing: If "good" and "evil" are defined by the gods, and the gods can change it on their collective whim, then (regardless of whether they're easily-swayed politicians who declare "good" and "evil" in hopes of getting higher approval ratings from the mortals, or rock-ribbed believers in their own philosophies) it isn't an objective moral system. In that case, I would agree with those saying to replace the spells with "Detect Heresy" or something like that; the gods simply tell their followers when something offensive to the gods' will is present. (Or at least, offensive to what they publicly claim their will to be, as they hope for higher approval from the mortals.)

If, on the other hand, "good" and "evil" are objective states with objective energies associated with them, then it's really up to you whether homosexuality pings or not.

I would suggest strongly, however, that even if you say it pings as evil, you only have "willful engagement in the act in the past" be what starts coloring people's alignments. Not "tendencies" or even "preferences." Even if you declare eating spicy food is evil, somebody who merely really thinks it smells good and is sorely tempted to try it, but always refrains, shouldn't be pinging as "evil" for his mere desire to eat spicy food.

Finally, this may all be a moot point. Detect evil doesn't pick up on run-of-the-mill evil mortals. They have to either have a divine aura (a class feature of clerics and paladins, for example) or be so ludicrously steeped in an alignment that they serve as paragons and exemplars of it just by their life choices before they ping. So, again, even if Bob joins his buddies in an orgy of chips and super-hot salsa at his local Tex-Mex den of sin on a weekly basis, he probably isn't going to ping. That salsa demon, though, would.

[Geddy2112]

Even in a setting where there is objective good and evil, good deities can frown on actions that would still be good. Just because they are good does not mean that they all agree, and probably have a few things they would fiercely debate. Same for lawful, chaotic, and evil deities. No two deities agree, even deities of the exact same alignment.

That said, I agree in this kind of setting it would be better to detect heresy unless you have defined anything that good gods disapprove of is evil. A very black and white stance, but if it is that way then yes.

Second that it is all moot. In pathfinder, they did away with every run of the mill Joe Blow evil pinging as evil. Undead, evil outsiders, and evil clerics/paladins/other religious classes with auras detect at any level. However, all other evil creatures only detect as evil if they have 5 or more HD- ruling out the commonfolk, and people this evil in power are either really good at hiding it, or it is painfully obvious.

The other option is that you change your canon so this is not an issue. This has only come up because you designed the world this way. When somebody asked why homosexuality existed in the world, you did not owe them an explanation. I do like that you managed to piece that together in a few seconds, but you could have also said"it is just the way it is/nobody knows/because reasons/zillions of theories but no evidence/nobody really cares".

[Psyren]

+1 changing the name to something like Detect Heresy, if you absolutely must go down this road (hint: you don't.)

[LoyalPaladin]

+1 changing the name to something like Detect Heresy, if you absolutely must go down this road (hint: you don't.)
As a paladin, I'm thoroughly amused by the thought of "Detect Heresy". If not only for the ability to look at my DM and say "Is he a heretic?"

[Segev]

As a paladin, I'm thoroughly amused by the thought of "Detect Heresy". If not only for the ability to look at my DM and say "Is he a heretic?"

Let's be honest. The Warhammer 40k Inquisitor power of "Assume Heresy" is much more fun.

If the Inquisitor thinks to use the power, he can assume the target is, in fact, a Heretic!

[TheIronGolem]

In the setting I made, Good and Evil have nothing to do with good and evil, or at least not as much as most people would believe

Every setting with "objective" Good and Evil is this way, whether their creators recognize that or not.

[LoyalPaladin]

OP, you're probably going to backlash no matter how you handle the subject, since it is a sensitive one. If you think it fits your setting, roll with it. Just be prepared for the inevitable "how terrible!" one of your players will eventually say.


Let's be honest. The Warhammer 40k Inquisitor power of "Assume Heresy" is much more fun.

If the Inquisitor thinks to use the power, he can assume the target is, in fact, a Heretic!
While this is efficient and probably fun. As a paladin, I can say this is probably an [Evil] way to live.

I mean, if I had a CP for every time I hear people say Paladins are smite happy or detect evil bots, I'd be wayyyy over my wealth by level chart.

[Segev]

Every setting with "objective" Good and Evil is this way, whether their creators recognize that or not.There was actually an entire thread on this subject. Suffice it to say: I disagree. But that will delve deeply into philosophy and ontological derivations to elaborate upon.



While this is efficient and probably fun. As a paladin, I can say this is probably an [Evil] way to live.Oh, sure. The 40k universe doesn't have any other alignments.

THere's also the low-int, low-wis, but good-hearted (i.e. something-Good) fighter's version: Ask Evil.

<fighter> *looms menacingly* ARE YOU EVIL?!? :smallmad:
<person-in-question> ...no? :smalleek:
<fighter> Okay! :smallsmile: *backs off*


I mean, if I had a CP for every time I hear people say Paladins are smite happy or detect evil bots, I'd be wayyyy over my wealth by level chart.Since that would be against the rules, would that be a willfully-committed chaotic act?

[Schattenbach]

Detect Heresy would make the most sense as it is only evil as it goes against the decree of the gods (and from the archetypical point of view of gods, disobeying their will is one of the worst sins of all), or, if it is universally agreed to be the will of the gods ... actively opposing it by actually living out that sexual orientation (that is considered taboo) might qualify as chaotic (as it goes against the norms of society and, moreover, against the will of the gods). Gods are forces of order (not law but cosmic order itself) to begin with (even if plenty of chaotic and/or evil gods would disagree in that regard).

[gooddragon1]

Let's be honest. The Warhammer 40k Inquisitor power of "Assume Heresy" is much more fun.

If the Inquisitor thinks to use the power, he can assume the target is, in fact, a Heretic!

"There is no such thing as a plea of innocence in my court. A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty." - Inquisitor Lord Fyodor Karamazov

"There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt." - ?

[LoyalPaladin]

Oh, sure. The 40k universe doesn't have any other alignments.
Looks like I'm going to need to work a double shift...


THere's also the low-int, low-wis, but good-hearted (i.e. something-Good) fighter's version: Ask Evil.

<fighter> *looms menacingly* ARE YOU EVIL?!? :smallmad:
<person-in-question> ...no? :smalleek:
<fighter> Okay! :smallsmile: *backs off*
Barbarians have one too. It's called "Rage Evil".

Barbarian: HRAAAAAHAHAHRGAAR!? :smallfurious:
Person in... question?: What?! No! I don- :smalleek:
Barbarian: *censored*


Since that would be against the rules, would that be a willfully-committed chaotic act?
Yes, it would be. But not by me. By everyone else who is overloading my WBL. I would never ask for it.

[RandomLunatic]

Hold on a second here. You made a setting where homosexuality is literally caused by genetic defects in a divine attempt at eugenics, and somehow your player is the bigot?

http://www.facepalm.de/images/facepalm.jpg

I'd say unfortunate implications abound, but this isn't subtle enough to imply anything. This is straight up "Dude, what the hell?"

That out of the way, B's logic is sound. If homosexuality is universally disapproved of, and the gods brand anything unpopular as Evil, then by the chain rule homosexuality is indeed evil in your setting. So paladins come with gaydar as a class feature. Arrgh.

[Schattenbach]

That out of the way, B's logic is sound. If homosexuality is universally disapproved of, and the gods brand anything unpopular as Evil, then by the chain rule homosexuality is indeed evil in your setting. So paladins come with gaydar as a class feature. Arrgh.

That's actually just the case if the gods point of view on this issue matters in regard of if it actually is considered evil or not; i.e. it's a question about if their point of view is able to universally change the concept of evil. As even gods are subject to the concept of evil, though, and the Goddess who created humanoids also is just some mere nature& fertility goddess (combined with Wealth ... that oly matters if there is a society that exists) ... what effect did the silence of that goddess have, anyway? If it didn't have any bad effect in particular expect that there's the need among humanoids to hold some kind of grudge and blame someone, I don't see where this would lead them to actually be evil besides being considered as such?

[Name1]

Ok, so since that seems to have caused a lot of confusion: The gods cannot decide on a whim what is Good or Evil. What counts as either is defined in the Pact Primeval. They had one shot at defining the two and that was that. They can theoretically revisit it, but that would require Asmodeus consent too... Which he likely won't give if it doesn't benefit him, which making something non-evil sure doesn't. The question never was how I could fix this, since, in D&D, the gods aren't omnipotent or omniscient. I could very well say that they just didn't think about it at the time and that nowadays enough people don't care anymore. That's kinda forced, but easy to do, what with the whole story being nearly forgotten in time.

So yeah, I'm just gonna say it doesn't count as Evil, since it seems to be the idea I'm getting here.
...I'll still change all the detect spells into "Detect Heresy". The detect spells tend to cause more problems than they fix anyway.


Hold on a second here. You made a setting where homosexuality is literally caused by genetic defects in a divine attempt at eugenics, and somehow your player is the bigot?

http://www.facepalm.de/images/facepalm.jpg

I'd say unfortunate implications abound, but this isn't subtle enough to imply anything. This is straight up "Dude, what the hell?"

That out of the way, B's logic is sound. If homosexuality is universally disapproved of, and the gods brand anything unpopular as Evil, then by the chain rule homosexuality is indeed evil in your setting. So paladins come with gaydar as a class feature. Arrgh.

This won't fix your problem with the scenario, as there are still paladins that come with a gaydar (of literally anything they disapprove of, which can be much since there is a paladin of every extreme alignment), so yeah... Some paladins come with a built-in gaydar :P

That aside, you got it a bit wrong: The defects didn't cause people to go homosexual, the magic did. That was the design flaw that caused all of those problems in the first place. And yeah, it wasn't the best idea, but that's the best thing I could come up with on the spot with nothing but an empty bag of Sour Cream & Onions Doritos as inspiration. Also... the bigot part was on my end. Sorry if I didn't make this clear. I knew that everything I'd do in that situation would likely result into something really insensitive. On the other hand, I just really dislike the idea of something being in my setting for no reason whatsoever :/

EDIT:
what effect did the silence of that goddess have, anyway? If it didn't have any bad effect in particular expect that there's the need among humanoids to hold some kind of grudge and blame someone, I don't see where this would lead them to actually be evil besides being considered as such?

The same thing that would happen if Pelor were to vanish: Most clerics loose their power and the biggest church in the coutry pretty much disbands out of nowhere, takig along most healing and resurrection magic. And the homosexuals in the setting, if I hadn't retconned it a few seconds ago, were never evil, but Evil. There's a difference.

[RandomLunatic]

That's actually just the case if the gods point of view on this issue matters in regard of if it actually is considered evil or not; i.e. it's a question about if their point of view is able to universally change the concept of evil.With the setting information we're told, yes, the gods do have the power to unilaterally define what is evil. And they do it more on the basis of what's good PR than any sort of ethical or moral considerations.

Hell, by what we're given, adultery is probably considered [Evil] in OP's setting as well.

EDIT

Ok, so since that seems to have caused a lot of confusion: The gods cannot decide on a whim what is Good or Evil. What counts as either is defined in the Pact Primeval. They had one shot at defining the two and that was that. They can theoretically revisit it, but that would require Asmodeus consent too... Which he likely won't give if it doesn't benefit him, which making something non-evil sure doesn't. The question never was how I could fix this, since, in D&D, the gods aren't omnipotent or omniscient. I could very well say that they just didn't think about it at the time and that nowadays enough people don't care anymore. That's kinda forced, but easy to do, what with the whole story being nearly forgotten in time.The gods still defined good and evil in your setting. It just comes down to "Did they think of it at the time."


That aside, you got it a bit wrong: The defects didn't cause people to go homosexual, the magic did.Yeah, I know technically it's not a direct relationship, but you still have a setting where the gays literally have something wrong with them on a fundamental level and shouldn't reproduce by divine mandate. That's the kind of thing I'd expect to see on Stormfront, not the Playground.

[Name1]

With the setting information we're told, yes, the gods do have the power to unilaterally define what is evil. And they do it more on the basis of what's good PR than any sort of ethical or moral considerations.

Hell, by what we're given, adultery is probably considered [Evil] in OP's setting as well.

1. They only got one shot at it.

2. Yeah, it's PR based more than anything else.

3. No. It is a chaotic act though.

[Troacctid]

This would be akin to making blonde hair, dark skin, or left-handedness detect as evil. It is absurd and, frankly, offensive. The answer is no, and you should feel bad for even considering it. End of discussion.

[TheBrassDuke]

Ugh...just handwave it and say Detoria made the diseased people sterile. Please, for the love of the Gods. Don't punish us for your gods's f*** up in the very beginning.

[LoyalPaladin]

This would be akin to making blonde hair, dark skin, or left-handedness detect as evil. It is absurd and, frankly, offensive. The answer is no, and you should feel bad for even considering it. End of discussion.
I suddenly have a great idea for a setting, where all left handed people are born [Evil] outsiders.

[InvisibleBison]

As for the question of why I came up with that story to begin with... let's just say someone asked why people were homosexual in the campaign and I had to come up with something in the span of a few seconds.

I have to ask - why didn't you simply reply "For the same reason that they exist in reality"?

[Conradine]

In my opinion the answer to your question is "yes". Even in standard settings.