Are Commoners now immune to Detect Evil?

[Umbran]

Civility, people. Respect. If you cannot post with them, don't post at all.

And, by extension - if someone's being a jerk, don't respond in kind. Thank you.

 

[BryonD]

I cannot help but notice you have refused to answer what should be a really simple question. So once again, do you wish to state that an aura has nothing to do with how evil a creature is, only how powerful they are?

Sorry, I truly thought that was clear. I did not realize I failed to answer the question.

Most 100% certainly YES. The creature must be evil, beyond that the aura Strength is a measure of power. Undead, clerics, paladins and outsiders use a difference SCALE, but again, it remains nothing but a measure of power.

Under 3E rules a 5th level evil cleric of the god of pickpockets has a stronger aura than the 3rd level cleric of the god of baby eating. In my game there would be no question that the latter was vastly "more evil". But the game mechanics include no assessment of "more evil". So the less evil pickpocket cleric would have a stronger aura than the greatly more evil baby eater cleric.

The spell only says evil[yes/no] and roughly how powerful the evil target is.

I like this system. It makes sense to me. It did in 3X, and it still does in PF.

Now, I may be misunderstanding you, but it appears you are stating that how evil someone is has nothing to do with their aura strength. Being evil and aura strength are not related. Is that what you are saying?

Yes.
Now it is my turn.
I have asked you multiple time to show me where 3E states that aura strength is a measure of how evil something is". To use your phrase it "should be a really simple question".


I see the phrase "most potent" (I was right upthread when I said "potential energy of evil"), but nothing about "most vile" or such.

 

[Ysgarran]

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

Hrmm? Mathius point was that "Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell." A very straightforward statement.
I'm not following your response at all. You seem to completely ignore Mathius's quote from the Pathfinder rules.

I understand your initial post regarding the change to Detect Evil. On the other hand I much prefer a more subtle view to alignment. Pathfinder moves in a direction that fits in nicely with my preferred take. The Pathfinder section on alignment starts of with:
"A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are
represented by its alignment...". It does not say a "A creatures ABSOLUTE moral attitude is DICTATED by its alignment." If we must apply a certain verisimilitude to the spell Detect Evil and its rational to the 5HD rule I would say that creatures under 5HD have not 'finalized" or settled into their final world view yet.

From a game play perspective I've always hated the "trial by" Detect Alignment. I don't want the players attitude towards a NPC to be determined by a spell, I want a players attitude towards an NPC to be determined by NPC's actions. Again, the Pathfinder direction in this fits in nicely with my preferred style of play.

 

[pawsplay]

I have asked you multiple time to show me where 3E states that aura strength is a measure of how evil something is".

But I am not claiming that.

 

[BryonD]

But I am not claiming that.

What are you claiming? You seemed to strongly challenge me on the idea that

an aura has nothing to do with how evil a creature is, only how powerful they are?

Show me where anything in 3X says that eating beans out of aunt Janie's skull has ANY relationship to aura strength. You said

it seems like detecting evil should intrinsically detect really evil beings

You have gone on and on about degrees of evil. The point I have made over and over is that degree of evil has nothing to do with it.

It is evil [yes/no] and then strength of aura is all about power.
This was true in 3E and remains true in PF.

If the most horribly evil thing ever to exist happens to be a 1HD goblin, it will not have a different aura than any other 1HD goblin.

What are you claiming?

You also said:

If it detects Evil, I don't think how much personal power you generate is that important, unless it's Evil personal power.

Do you stand by that statement? Because by 3X rules it is wrong.
That is not to say in any way that you are wrong to prefer a system built that way. But we are discussing the 3E and PF rules and for those rule sets, once evil[yes/no] is established, personal power not only is important, it is the determining factor.

 

[BryonD]

Here is a series of quotes from you from this thread:

it seems like detecting evil should intrinsically detect really evil beings

So, the a 2HD bandit who kills noncombatants, including children; rapes and killis eats his enemies' body parts in front of their surviving comrades; murders the priests and lay clergy of the local Good temple and so forth, does not have an aura of evil in PF

"Gosh, these murderous orc is simply too wimpy to contain true moral decay," just doesn't hold a lot of water.

I want to know why the 5 HD leader of a goblin raiding camp is not evil enough to detect.

If you want a spell that can detect when an otherwise and generally neutral 6 HD rogue has decided to act on evil intent, but cannot detect a 3 HD goblin leader who has personally murdered dozens of individuals, some of them just for sport, over the course of years, then I guess the spell functions correctly for you.

I object to the idea that being 11 HD and a bad person warrants an aura, but eating beans out of Aunt Janie's skull does not.

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.

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."

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

You, on the other hand, are trying to justify the idea that the detect evil spell fundamentally measures hit dice.

So once again, do you wish to state that an aura has nothing to do with how evil a creature is, only how powerful they are?

Over and over you go back to concepts of relative evil and reject the concept of simply measuring HD. And yet this is precisely how it is done under 3E rules.

You advocate the importance of “really evil”, in contrast to the mechanical function of evil[yes/no]. You advocate the importance of “true moral decay”. You suggest it is important whether or not something is “not evil enough”, as opposed to the mechanical function of evil[yes/no]. You find relevance in Aunt Janie’s skull, and yet nothing in the 3E rules suggest that it should be worthy of mention in this discussion.

You specifically claim an actual presentation of the rules as written calls for a connection between number of hit dice and degree of evil.

It is quite apparent that the quotes describe a detect evil function that establishes aura strength based on “how evil” something is.

I am disputing that.

 

[Salthorae]

That's very interesting and could very well be true. Unfortunately, it's really ambiguous what is meant by "Presence or absence of evil." Especially since we know detect evil isn't necessarily what it says on the tine.

How is the statement "presence or absence of evil" ambiguous? It says that within your 60' cone there is either evil or there is not. What is unclear about that statement?

Round 1: Question - "is there evil?", Answer is either "yes" or "no".

If the evil isn't greater than 5HD (and not undead/outsider/cleric/paladin) then they don't have any aura however and you won't be able to pick them out of the crowd, but you'll know that someone/something (since it detects evil objects and spells too) is evil by alignment.

 

[BryonD]

How is the statement "presence or absence of evil" ambiguous? It says that within your 60' cone there is either evil or there is not. What is unclear about that statement?

Round 1: Question - "is there evil?", Answer is either "yes" or "no".

If the evil isn't greater than 5HD (and not undead/outsider/cleric/paladin) then they don't have any aura however and you won't be able to pick them out of the crowd, but you'll know that someone/something (since it detects evil objects and spells too) is evil by alignment.

This is a good point. In all the discussion of aura Strength, I overlooked that it doesn't even come into play until Step 2.

If you get a positive ding on evil but no auras, then at least 1 creature or item in the area is evil. So it will ping, just not clearly.

Though if there is an evil L4 sorcerer standing invisibly next to the guy you think is alone, you can easily jump to the wrong conclusion. Same thing if someone planted a low CL magic item on the guy to make him a patsy.

 

[pawsplay]

What are you claiming?

That the 3.5 version was more consistent. Evil creatures have evil auras. If an 11th level rogue can produce a palpable aura by having an evil intent, then a 4 HD rogue should be able to produce one by being evil. If an 11th level rogue can leave a "dim" aura by walking through a room, then a 4 HD rogue should produce at least a dim aura if he sacrifices a baby in that very room.

My argument is this: Evil is detectable. The evil intent of individual actions is detectable. If evil is detectable in that fashion, then a lifetime of evil, leading up to an Evil alignment, should be detectable.

I am not making the argument that aura is a function of evil deeds. Aura is a function of power and being evil. If a creature is weak, so be it, its aura is weak, but it has an aura that by all logic and reason should be at least as strong as a 6 HD cleric's cologne.

How is the statement "presence or absence of evil" ambiguous? It says that within your 60' cone there is either evil or there is not. What is unclear about that statement?

Because it doesn't say what it means by presence or absence of evil. If it means evil creatures, you are correct. If it means evil auras, then no.

 

[BryonD]

That the 3.5 version was more consistent. Evil creatures have evil auras.

Ok. I like both versions. And I see the same consistency, just with a shifting of sensitivity.

If an 11th level rogue can produce a palpable aura by having an evil intent, then a 4 HD rogue should be able to produce one by being evil. If an 11th level rogue can leave a "dim" aura by walking through a room, then a 4 HD rogue should produce at least a dim aura if he sacrifices a baby in that very room.

That act would not change the aura strength in 3E and so it is not relevant to the conversation.

I don't agree that your assessment needs to be true.
As I said way up thread. House rule it, no big deal.

My argument is this: Evil is detectable.

Why?

The evil intent of individual actions is detectable. If evil is detectable in that fashion, then a lifetime of evil, leading up to an Evil alignment, should be detectable.

If a lifetime of evil acts does not result in being 5th level, then no they don't.

I am not making the argument that aura is a function of evil deeds.

Well, as I demonstrated, you greatly muddied this water by repeatedly referencing auras as a function of evil deeds. A reasonable reading of your words says that you were making exactly that argument.

Aura is a function of power and being evil. If a creature is weak, so be it, its aura is weak, but it has an aura that by all logic and reason should be at least as strong as a 6 HD cleric's cologne.

Wrong. You must be evil[yes] to have an evil aura. Aura strength is a function of class/type and HD.

What is this "all logic and reason" you speak of?

Because it doesn't say what it means by presence or absence of evil. If it means evil creatures, you are correct. If it means evil auras, then no.

It says "evil". Auras are not mentioned unto Step 2. I think that is pretty clear.