Are Commoners now immune to Detect Evil?

[Salthorae]

Because it doesn't say waht it means...

I will agree that it doesn't specify creatures/spells/items or auras in the text for round 1 effects of the spell. But it does specify in round 2,3,4,... auras. Therefore one would assume that the initial round is a general "is there evil period" and then it gets more specific, just as the wording of the spell gets more specific as the rounds progress.

Is it so hard to understand that a 1st level spell can't detect something fainter than 5HD? If you want something that can detect them, then either just house rule back to 3.5 Detect Evil or develop a higher level spell that can detect the more granular evil < 5HD non-undead/non-outsider/non-cleric...

Greater Detect X
Cleric 3 (or 4 or 5 etc)
You now have the ability to perceive dim auras of strength less than faint for evil creatures with less than 5HD

Done...

 

[BryonD]

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

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.

Can reconcile how in the second case the aura is a function of anything other than evil deeds?

 

[pawsplay]

I will agree that it doesn't specify creatures/spells/items or auras in the text for round 1 effects of the spell. But it does specify in round 2,3,4,... auras. Therefore one would assume that the initial round is a general "is there evil period" and then it gets more specific, just as the wording of the spell gets more specific as the rounds progress.

I would assume that if round 2, 3, and 4 detect auras, then round 1 does indeed detect auras as well.

Is it so hard to understand that a 1st level spell can't detect something fainter than 5HD?

I am certainly not having trouble understanding how the spell was written, just why it was written that way.

 

[pawsplay]

Can reconcile how in the second case the aura is a function of anything other than evil deeds?

It is a function of evil alignment. There is no difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder in that respect.

 

[Salthorae]

I am certainly not having trouble understanding how the spell was written, just why it was written that way.

Why? It doesn't matter why it was written that way, and our endless back and forth here won't magically reveal the authors' intent, unless they choose to share with us (James Jacobs?). All that matters is what you do with how it was written in a game. You can accept it or not and change it, but debating why a rule was written doesn't gain you a whole lot.

I appreciate Stalker0 bringing light to the subject though as it has allowed me to interact and think through my rationale related to this spell and it's changes from 3.5 ... Better here than in the middle of a game!

 

[BryonD]

It is a function of evil alignment. There is no difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder in that respect.

The statement you made does not present this position.

And, as I detailed, numerous other comments from you as well. It seems you have reached the point of saying X and then simply denying saying X. So there is probably nothing further to be gained here.

 

[pawsplay]

Why?

Because it was changed. Curiosity asks why, apart from any other reasons.

It doesn't matter why it was written that way, and our endless back and forth here won't magically reveal the authors' intent, unless they choose to share with us (James Jacobs?). All that matters is what you do with how it was written in a game. You can accept it or not and change it, but debating why a rule was written doesn't gain you a whole lot.

I'm not really trying to divine the intent of a particular person. I meant, what can we understand about the purpose in the design of this change? I presume anything that was changed from 3.5 was changed for a reason. Since I don't see the utility of this change, I am curious about the rationale. While I can appreciate that some people like it, to me it just seems illogical. It's possible one of the Paizo people will jump in and comment, but I'm not holding my breath. I imagine the rationale was probably something much along the lines of introducing shades of gray, making things interesting for the paladin, helping with mystery adventures and so forth, but as I've expressed above, I don't think this change really accomplishes that. Maybe there's something I'm just not seeing. Then again... maybe it was just a last minute compromise by those who wanted it to only detect Evil monsters and clerics and those who wanted it to remain as it was.

 

[SSquirrel]

Well, anecdotally, I've been in groups where the Paladin was lazy and just ran around Detecting Evil on everything and using the results to justify almost anything. Was it bad DMing to allow it? Maybe, but not everyone knows better. Sometimes even having consequences didn't stop them. Making this change leaves some ambiguity and helps enforce actually playing your character to look into what is going on instead of just using an ability round after round and hoping you get guidance. Yes this would help preserve some mystery in adventures too instead of "I detect it, let's kill it now!".

By the time you are fighting things that should show up, maybe that player will have a better handle on responsible/appropriate usage of the ability. Paizo may have felt Golarion(sp?) was a slightly less cut and dried world and thus made the change. It would definitely help make that so. You know SOMETHING evil is near you, but it's impossible to know if it's that farmer, that fighter walking by, that seemingly harmless and dirty old man begging on the corner, etc. Meditate on this a bit longer and you see only one who clearly stands out. When you sic your group on him one of the others who was a flunkie sneaks off to report that the group has infiltrated the cultists...or walked into the trap. The old Detect Evil of editions past would have turned 3 of those people up and no real variance. 3.5 at least would have stronger auras for higher level.

 

[Mistah J]

I too, have found this thread to be helpful in wrapping my head around the detect evil spell. I have a Paladin in one of my games who was disheartened upon learning that the spell would not ping the 3HD bandits he was fighting. The other players agreed, using the "low HD psycho" argument and though I still used the spell as written, I sympathized with them.

Now that I see both sides clearly, I'm wondering if a version that detected "how evil" or the "vileness" of one's evil would be a good idea?

I'm also curious as to what people think of the PF Paladin's "quick detect" ability. As a single move action, you can get all the info of 3 rounds of study - but only for one creature or object.

So that 3HD bandit would register as evil, and then have no aura or strength... right?

 

[pawsplay]

Maybe. To detect even presence of evil in the first, if there is no aura, requires an intepretation of the spell not based on anything really in the rules. "The presence of evil" is not defined, and could very well mean, "If there are evil auras present."