Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5776212" data-attributes="member: 70709">Oh, absolutely as options.&nbsp; Ignoring a few spells is trivial (but because of the importance of alignment in the game I feel written sanction helps people who only want to use &quot;official&quot; things), and the differences between the other two is a well-written paragraph at most.The other operational details of the spells aren't that important to compare the traditional version to the compromise one.&nbsp; I mean, if a thin sheet of lead blocks the spell, it would do so for both.&nbsp; So a low-level version of the spell might grant a snapshot, an upgraded version might last for as long as the caster concentrates (whether that means the picture changes in &quot;real time&quot; or simply grants ever more detail about what is being detected), and maybe an epic Paladin gains an ability to have it on continuously as a spell-like affect.&nbsp; In the traditional version you need to know if a creature of evil alignment is within range.&nbsp; In the compromise version you need to know if a creature is performing/intending evil acts.&nbsp; Likewise, if the spell determines the &quot;magnitude&quot; of the evil that will need to be done for both versions.&nbsp; I grant that the DM may need to make more subtle decisions using the compromise method, but it also probably engages the world more firmly than a line in a statblock.&nbsp; For games that want that it might make for a superior Detect Spell experience. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Alignment disagreements while using the compromise method are just as inevitable as with the traditional method, of course.&nbsp; For example, over why so-and-so didn't show up as evil while cheating at cards.&nbsp; In the traditional system the disagreement might be how the DM could justify that a creature who cheats has anything other than an evil alignment. Those disagreements aren't identical, but the impact at the table is basically the same.&nbsp; In either case the cycle of alignment fights goes on, and is exactly why the game should let everyone opt out if desired.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 5776212, member: 70709"] Oh, absolutely as options. Ignoring a few spells is trivial (but because of the importance of alignment in the game I feel written sanction helps people who only want to use "official" things), and the differences between the other two is a well-written paragraph at most. The other operational details of the spells aren't that important to compare the traditional version to the compromise one. I mean, if a thin sheet of lead blocks the spell, it would do so for both. So a low-level version of the spell might grant a snapshot, an upgraded version might last for as long as the caster concentrates (whether that means the picture changes in "real time" or simply grants ever more detail about what is being detected), and maybe an epic Paladin gains an ability to have it on continuously as a spell-like affect. In the traditional version you need to know if a creature of evil alignment is within range. In the compromise version you need to know if a creature is performing/intending evil acts. Likewise, if the spell determines the "magnitude" of the evil that will need to be done for both versions. I grant that the DM may need to make more subtle decisions using the compromise method, but it also probably engages the world more firmly than a line in a statblock. For games that want that it might make for a superior Detect Spell experience. :) Alignment disagreements while using the compromise method are just as inevitable as with the traditional method, of course. For example, over why so-and-so didn't show up as evil while cheating at cards. In the traditional system the disagreement might be how the DM could justify that a creature who cheats has anything other than an evil alignment. Those disagreements aren't identical, but the impact at the table is basically the same. In either case the cycle of alignment fights goes on, and is exactly why the game should let everyone opt out if desired. [/QUOTE]

Verification