Are Commoners now immune to Detect Evil?

[pawsplay]

You are not even being consistent. You said being able to tell 6HD was a new and bad thing. And yet when I point out that you could already tell 11HD you sidestep that this is exactly the same problem.

I wasn't trying to be evasive. I just thought it was obvious that if being able to detect HD thresholds was not the main point of detect evil, then the less obvious breakpoints there were, the better.

I did not question whether 11HD should warrant "an arua" , I questioned why it is terrible for a 6HD evil person to have a notable different aura than a 5HD person (as you complained about) and yet you seem to accept with no qualms whatsoever that an 11HD person has a notably different aura than a 10 HD person.

My objection was that the aura of a 4 HD person would be imperceptible, not that it would simply be weaker.

Here is your quote:"now they do" is false. The only thing that has changed is the threshold has moved from 11 to 6.

Why under 3.5 does an 11HD rogue who is life long petty thief warrant a stronger aura than a 4 HD guy who eats beans out of Aunt Janie's skull?

By 11th level, there's no telling what a character has done. Even if a character has been a squeaky clean paladin up to that 11th evil, if he suddently turns evil, it's probably significant. Obviously, no system is perfect. There really is not a good way to measure, ounce by ounce, how much evil someone has done. Simply being a petty thief does not lead inexorably to an evil alignment. He must have some capacity for Evil.

If the 11th level evil thief and the 4th level serial killer both generate an aura, at least, that's a better result than the thief being observably evil and the serial killer not.

Imgine prefacing the alignment descriptions with this: "In D&D, killing and eating humans is not considered especially evil, metaphysically, although it can certainly contribute to a person's alignment. Evil is more of a measure of personal power, filtered through an alignment. Hence, an 11th level thief who ruthlessly kills might have an aura that shows up as evil, as might a ruthless 11th level tyrant, but a barber who kills people and cooks them into meat pies, selling them to unsuspecting customers, doesn't have a strong aura of evil, despite having an evil alignment."

Again, you are forcing additional elements into the mechanic that are not there. Under 3.5 Detect Evil did nothing but look at is it evil [yes/no] and how many HD does it have.

Describe how I am forcing additional elements into the mechanic. What does that mean, exactly? I am fairly comfortable with Detect Evil detetcing evil (yes/no) and how many HD it has.

Perhaps you are saying that under the 3X alignment system that anyone evil would eat beans out of Aunt Janie's skull and if you won't do that you don't qualify as evil. If you are imposing this interpretation on the system then I'd say you are out of step with the common interpretation. Which is fine, but it is going to fall to you to deal with adjustments to the system that reflect your other changes.

Perhaps I am claiming that that a bowl is a spoon. Perhaps you are claiming that all halflings are actually cultists of Demogorgon. No, I am not claiming that.

But detect evil has *never* detected "how evil are you", it has always detected "how powerful are you". Show me the SRD or 3X quote that describes how eating beans out of Aunt Janie's skull would change the result of detect evil.

You would be detectable. As evil.

It is the same black and white for more powerful opponents. For weaker opponents it adds more shades of gray. Last time I checked, more shades of gray was more shades of gray.

All it really says is that really bad evil has lots of hit dice. Lesser evil is... not that evil. Doesn't sound very gray to me. Demons = bad, shopkeepers = who knows. Certainly, making the alignment system more confusing and less intuitive does remove some level of moral clarity. Adding under Lawful Good that LG characters endorse slavery and regularly engage in its practice would also have this result, while sharing the same problem of making it unclear what Good or Evil actually means.

But that does not mean more shades of gray.

Knowing that a shopkeeper is definitely Evil, but not knowing if he has done anything wrong or criminal, is very gray, and any gains you make from making the shopkeeper undetectable must be balanced against the shades of gray you lose. Making EVERYONE who detects as evil some kind of villain, antihero, or monster is not shades of gray, that's melodrama.

He said "It's for finding hidden outsiders, detecting the presence of nightmarish monsters, or rooting out sinister cultists imbued with the power of Evil." Note that last part "imbued with the power of Evil.". If your whole "cult" is made up of rogues and sorcerers less than 5HD, then it is fair to say that they are not "imbued with the power of Evil."

According to you, being 11th level and evil will imbue you with the power of evil. What's the difference?

As to the 1st level paladin, quite simply: Why not? It still finds evil undead, and evil clerics. But the paladin must learn how to deal with some of the more challenging questions of morality before his god start giving him answers for free when it comes to rogues and wizards.

Bottom line is, if you want to say you are house-ruling because in your campaign things like whether or not you eat beans out of aunt Janie's brain are part of the detect evil equation, then fine. I see no reason for anyone to argue. But if you are going to present a case that this is at odds with prior views you will need to present a case that relies on nothing more than [yes/no] evil and HD, because that is what 3.5 had.

No, I don't. The 3.5 version functions well, and hence I do not need to rely on anything more than it relied on. I like the "actively evil intent" clause, though. In my view the Pathfinder version is not as well-designed a spell as the 3.5 version.

3.5 is superior in another way; "dim" auras. Lingering auras had this strength, which was detectable. Maybe you don't like lingering auras. In that case, why not level a low-HD creature have a dim, detectable aura?

Clearly, 3.5 allowed detect evil to detect very faint auras. If the Pathfinder version is based on the same basic alignment premises, and the only difference is that low HD creatures have auras weaker than Faint, then I would like to know why the Pathfinder version is not able to detect dim auras.

If you remove lingering auras and add the active intent to cause evil clause, the spells function in basically the same way. Except the Pathfinder version says weaker evil creatures have no auras. Not even fiendish dire rats.

 

[BryonD]

I wasn't trying to be evasive. I just thought it was obvious that if being able to detect HD thresholds was not the main point of detect evil, then the less obvious breakpoints there were, the better.

But how can that be when detection thresholds are the entire point?

By 11th level, there's no telling what a character has done....

You specifically complained about being able to tell the hit dice by a difference in the response. This issue is exactly the same.

Imgine prefacing the alignment descriptions with this: "In D&D, killing and eating humans is not considered especially evil, metaphysically, although it can certainly contribute to a person's alignment. Evil is more of a measure of personal power, filtered through an alignment. Hence, an 11th level thief who ruthlessly kills might have an aura that shows up as evil, as might a ruthless 11th level tyrant, but a barber who kills people and cooks them into meat pies, selling them to unsuspecting customers, doesn't have a strong aura of evil, despite having an evil alignment."

You are again incorrectly mixing and matching. Not a word in Detect Evil says anything about whether or not something is "especially evil". That is a false interpretation. Evil is evil. Evil and personal power are completely unrelated.

However, just as in 3E, the aura strength is a function NOT of how evil the target is, but of their personal power. You are falsely relating aura strength with degree of moral decay.

Describe how I am forcing additional elements into the mechanic. What does that mean, exactly? I am fairly comfortable with Detect Evil detetcing evil (yes/no) and how many HD it has.

Well, just above you are interchanging "how many HD" with how deeply evil something is. The whole "aunt Janie's skull" thing has nothing to do with the spell, but you are forcing this additional element into the mechanic.

You would be detectable. As evil.

If I'm evil I detect whether eating out of the skull or not. The question asked and not answered was: what change would the eating cause? Do you have an answer to that?

All it really says is that really bad evil has lots of hit dice. Lesser evil is... not that evil.

No, see this is where you are exactly wrong. It says no such thing. It just says that more HD = Stronger Aura.
There is NOTHING that says stronger aura = really bad evil.
Lesser evil with lots of HD = Strong aura
Really bad evil with few HD = Weak Aura

But that does not mean more shades of gray.

Yes it does.

Knowing that a shopkeeper is definitely Evil, but not knowing if he has done anything wrong or criminal, is very gray, and any gains you make from making the shopkeeper undetectable must be balanced against the shades of gray you lose. Making EVERYONE who detects as evil some kind of villain, antihero, or monster is not shades of gray, that's melodrama.

Huh?
I mean sure, I never claimed that 3E had no shades of gray. But if you add in uncertainty if he is even evil (though he may be) is even more. Seems quite simple to me.

According to you, being 11th level and evil will imbue you with the power of evil. What's the difference?

Where did I say that? Again, you are forcing your false Aura power = amount of evil view into the system. I say "strong aura" and you read "imbued with evil". That is a mistake on your part.

No, I don't. The 3.5 version functions well, and hence I do not need to rely on anything more than it relied on. I like the "actively evil intent" clause, though. In my view the Pathfinder version is not as well-designed a spell as the 3.5 version.

I think they are both good designs. And they function exactly the same, except with adjusted thresholds.

... "dim" auras. Lingering auras ...

PF has this. Look again.

 

[Mathius]

It was one of those nights where you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view

Awesome gratuitous AC/DC reference.

 

[Mathius]

Something that I have noticed, looking at both the PHB and the Pathfinder books, I noticed that in the Pathfinder book, at the very bottom of the "Detect Evil" spell entry it states the following:

Creatures with actively evil intent count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.

And in the spell in both books it states that the spell detects evil AND evil auras. This does not mean that a low level commoner cannot be evil. It only means that he does not have an aura. By this dynamic, if anyone has active evil intent, they can still be picked up through a detect evil spell, regardless of aura.

After further reading the 3.5 PHB, it says that only "Evil Creatures" can be detected. It says nothing of the fact that "Evil intent" lends the Evil subtype to a creature, as does the Pathfinder book. By this logic, even in 3.5 the Paladin at 1st Level wouldn't be able to detect evil on the Barkeep/Wizard/Rogue/What have you and regardless of level. This kind of makes your whole arguement moot, Pawsplay.

 

[Starbuck_II]

After further reading the 3.5 PHB, it says that only "Evil Creatures" can be detected. It says nothing of the fact that "Evil intent" lends the Evil subtype to a creature, as does the Pathfinder book. By this logic, even in 3.5 the Paladin at 1st Level wouldn't be able to detect evil on the Barkeep/Wizard/Rogue/What have you and regardless of level. This kind of makes your whole arguement moot, Pawsplay.

What? Um, if that Wizard/Rogue/Barkeep was evil in 3.5, it detected them. Evil intent was something Pathfinder added.

Before it was for Pally to know who they can be around and who to smite (code disqualifies hanging with evil)

 

[pawsplay]

Something that I have noticed, looking at both the PHB and the Pathfinder books, I noticed that in the Pathfinder book, at the very bottom of the "Detect Evil" spell entry it states the following:



And in the spell in both books it states that the spell detects evil AND evil auras. This does not mean that a low level commoner cannot be evil. It only means that he does not have an aura. By this dynamic, if anyone has active evil intent, they can still be picked up through a detect evil spell, regardless of aura.

Incorrect. They are detected as evil creatures. Evil creatures with 4 HD or less have no auras.

11th level rogue with evil intent -> Evil aura
3rd level serial killer actually eating a baby -> No Aura

After further reading the 3.5 PHB, it says that only "Evil Creatures" can be detected. It says nothing of the fact that "Evil intent" lends the Evil subtype to a creature, as does the Pathfinder book. By this logic, even in 3.5 the Paladin at 1st Level wouldn't be able to detect evil on the Barkeep/Wizard/Rogue/What have you and regardless of level. This kind of makes your whole arguement moot, Pawsplay.

A NE barkeep is an "evil creature" and hence detectable. Detect evil in Pf says nothing about evil subtypes.

 

[pawsplay]

However, just as in 3E, the aura strength is a function NOT of how evil the target is, but of their personal power. You are falsely relating aura strength with degree of moral decay.

So good creatures can generate an evil aura, too?

Well, just above you are interchanging "how many HD" with how deeply evil something is. The whole "aunt Janie's skull" thing has nothing to do with the spell, but you are forcing this additional element into the mechanic.

I am not interchanging. Both being evil and how many HD something has are important to the spell as written. You are interpeting into my words something that is not there, the idea that I am measuring how "deeply evil" something is. I am simply pointing out that a low level character can be unquestionably evil in a way the spell supposedly detects (the presence of a detectable metaphysical force caused by evil acts). You, on the other hand, are trying to justify the idea that the detect evil spell fundamentally measures hit dice.

If I'm evil I detect whether eating out of the skull or not. The question asked and not answered was: what change would the eating cause? Do you have an answer to that?

I'm going to put forward the idea that killing and eating another human being, except as a singular act performed in a state of mental incapacity or as an act of survival, means your alignment is evil.

No, see this is where you are exactly wrong. It says no such thing. It just says that more HD = Stronger Aura.
There is NOTHING that says stronger aura = really bad evil.
Lesser evil with lots of HD = Strong aura
Really bad evil with few HD = Weak Aura

So really strong auras are not bad? I should not feel threatened by the presence of a strong, evil aura?

Where did I say that? Again, you are forcing your false Aura power = amount of evil view into the system. I say "strong aura" and you read "imbued with evil". That is a mistake on your part.

How is that a mistake? What does strong aura mean apart from containing whatever presence we are calling evil? Imbued with evil simply means it has collected this tangible evil. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding me, but to me "imbued with evil" and "has a strong aura" are both ways of saying that something contains the element Evil.

PF has this. Look again.

So it does. That makes the lack of auras even more incomprehensible. I can tell if someone with 5 HD just walked through the room, but I can't tell if I'm standing right next to a Jack the Ripper?

 

[Mathius]

What? Um, if that Wizard/Rogue/Barkeep was evil in 3.5 it detected them.

Actually no, it didn't.

Seriously. Read the spell as written in the PHB. In D&D 3.5, the Detect Evil spell would never, regardless of level, detect anything that was not an "Evil Creature". Alignment never had anything to do with it. Your whole arguement has been that the Detect Evil spell was just fine in 3.5 yet is somehow screwed up in Pathfinder. In 3.5 commoners were never considered "Evil Creatures" for the purpose of the Detect Evil spell (it says nowhere in the book that Evil intent means a damn thing), therefore, no matter their intentions, the Paladin would not be able to detect them. In Pathfinder, they added the Evil Intent = Evil Creature. The Paladin can still detect them as evil, whether they have an aura or not.

3rd level serial killer actually eating a baby -> No Aura

They are still evil beings according to the book, they are just not powerful evil beings. If you merely wish to know if they are evil or not, Detect Evil works just fine. It is only if you wish to know if they have some dark miasma that a Detect Evil spell will fail you.

By this logic, the 3.5 Detect Evil spell fails.

 

[pawsplay]

In D&D 3.5, the Detect Evil spell would never, regardless of level, detect anything that was not an "Evil Creature". Alignment never had anything to do with it.

This is incorrect. An evil creature is a creature that is evil. There is no other definition. You seem to be confusing this with the Evil Subtype, which is actually not referenced by the spell at all.

They are still evil beings according to the book, they are just not powerful evil beings.

This is correct.

 

[Mathius]

This is incorrect. An evil creature is a creature that is evil. There is no other definition.

Please indicated to me what book and page the words "evil alignment = evil creature" in 3.5. And please quote the exact text as written please. Until you do this the above statement is meaningless and will summarily be ignored.

The whole basis, again, of your argument is that the spell as written in 3.5 is more functional than the spell as written in Pathfinder. You have offered no proof of this and therefore your argument is completely without merit. You have only voiced opinion and no facts.

Fact: 3.5 offers no leeway as far as intention is concered. THEREFORE only beings with the "Creature" moniker can be detected by the spell. It says nowhere in the 3.5 materials that commoners can be given the creature label (please cite book, page number and exact text if I am wrong).

Fact: In Pathfinder, it states clearly than any "Aligned Creature" of 5 HD or less gives off no aura, but it does state that anything with "Evil intent" is to be considered an "Evil Creature". This now includes anything with a pulse and semi-sentience.

Fact: In NEITHER spell does it state that evil = aura. The first round of the spell detects evil and evil only. It is not until the second round that the word aura even makes an appearance.

Now, according to Pathfinder, evil intent = presence of evil. First level Detect Evil will detect this. It may or may not give you specifics as to who it is, what it is, or even where it is. This is up to the DM to determine and cannot be logically argued, at least as far as the first round of the spell as written. The longer you concentrate, the more you can round it down, but the more you concentrate on something of lower level does not necessarily equate to more information due to the fact that the individual is simple not powerful enough to have an aura to detect at any great length.

Some people are just too weak to have the aura, but are still detectable to the spell as they are, by definition present, and evil.