Detect Evil on party members

[Arnwyn]

Is there some unwritten rule that PCs don't detect on other PCs?

No.

And as a bonus question: does detection magic work through a mirror? Can you detect magic/evil on yourself?

No.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Been a while since I read Wulf's story hour, but I believe the halfling was executed for his actions (edit - rather than specifically his alignment), wasn't he? In-game, whether or not he was evil wasn't a huge factor either way.

My impression was that Wulf would have been happy with him being evil, just so long as he wasn't an idiot putting his own friends at risk. I also don't think there was a cleric in that group - maybe a druid?

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

This actually came up in a recent game I was in and the entire scenario poses a problem.

The CliffNotes version of the story is that I am running a rogue/assassin, who is NE. Another party member in running a Paladin, LG. The Paladin detected evil on the assassin, got the NE result and attacked him. Other party members intervened before it could come to a full fight. However, the player running the paladins said this was the “fun of the game, running the characters the way they would behave.”

The problem is that while in a fair fight the paladin would win, the assassin is not interested in a fair fight. Further, the assassin is a half-orc and possesses dark vision – which the human paladin does not – and the confrontation occurred in darkened caverns and mines.

Had I run the assassin as “the way he would behave,” he would have put out the light, left the paladin in the dark and made repeated death attacks and sneak attacks on the nearly helpless paladin until he was dead.

But the player running the paladin would have created a very real problem for the playing group had I done this. He can talk the talk, but when served his own medicine he has created problems in the past and would do so again in the future.

So the issue is less a mechanical one of game rules, but one of the dynamics of the people running the characters. Sometimes it is better to not run the “characters they way they would behave” to preserve to group and the ability of the group to get along.

 

[MoonZar]

This actually came up in a recent game I was in and the entire scenario poses a problem.

The CliffNotes version of the story is that I am running a rogue/assassin, who is NE. Another party member in running a Paladin, LG. The Paladin detected evil on the assassin, got the NE result and attacked him. Other party members intervened before it could come to a full fight. However, the player running the paladins said this was the “fun of the game, running the characters the way they would behave.”

The problem is that while in a fair fight the paladin would win, the assassin is not interested in a fair fight. Further, the assassin is a half-orc and possesses dark vision – which the human paladin does not – and the confrontation occurred in darkened caverns and mines.

Had I run the assassin as “the way he would behave,” he would have put out the light, left the paladin in the dark and made repeated death attacks and sneak attacks on the nearly helpless paladin until he was dead.

But the player running the paladin would have created a very real problem for the playing group had I done this. He can talk the talk, but when served his own medicine he has created problems in the past and would do so again in the future.

So the issue is less a mechanical one of game rules, but one of the dynamics of the people running the characters. Sometimes it is better to not run the “characters they way they would behave” to preserve to group and the ability of the group to get along.

Hello,

I think this not the paladin fault in the first place...

Does somebody could try to explain me why a DM should allow a LG Paladin and a Assasin NE to be in the same group ??????

I still don't understand the meaning of this, one day or another they will kill each other if they play their alignment. I think that the DM should say alignment restriction if he want the campaign to work. Like N and Evil or N and Good but not Good and Evil !!!!

I know that everybody want to play what they want but this simply doesn't work together in a group who's suppose to accomplish great heroic stuff together as a team.

 

[tarchon]

The CliffNotes version of the story is that I am running a rogue/assassin, who is NE. Another party member in running a Paladin, LG. The Paladin detected evil on the assassin, got the NE result and attacked him. Other party members intervened before it could come to a full fight. However, the player running the paladins said this was the “fun of the game, running the characters the way they would behave.”

The problem is that while in a fair fight the paladin would win, the assassin is not interested in a fair fight. Further, the assassin is a half-orc and possesses dark vision – which the human paladin does not – and the confrontation occurred in darkened caverns and mines.

Had I run the assassin as “the way he would behave,” he would have put out the light, left the paladin in the dark and made repeated death attacks and sneak attacks on the nearly helpless paladin until he was dead.

Well, I don't think immediately attacking anyone with evil alignment is something paladins should be doing. They always forget the "lawful" part, or make some Judge Dredd "I am the law!" kind of argument. (Anyone who says "I am the law" is Chaotic, in my book.)
But more to the point, my advice is "make it look like an accident."

 

[twofalls]

Supernatural Only

Hmmm. Is mine the only game in this thread that limits alignment detection spells to supernatural creatures? Outsiders, Magical Beasts, Aberrations, Dragons, etc. Try to Detect Evil on an Orc and all you get is the equivalent of magical static and probably a pissed off Orc (unless that orc happens to be a sorcerer... because Dragonblood makes a person supernatural in my game).

The reason I do this is to encourage role-playing. There is no simple solution to new party members. The Paladin doesn't get to turn to Gustav the Scout, concentrate for a moment, and then hack him in two for detecting as evil. If you are a bad person, you prove it (or not) by your actions and nothing is so cut and dry.

Supernatural creatures are the exception because so many of the mechanics of the game ARE built about the alignment system and it's easier to justify in my mind. It's worked in my D&D games for over 20 years (the previous 7 years to that I was too young to care, hack ruled!).

 

[tarchon]

Hmmm. Is mine the only game in this thread that limits alignment detection spells to supernatural creatures? Outsiders, Magical Beasts, Aberrations, Dragons, etc. Try to Detect Evil on an Orc and all you get is the equivalent of magical static and probably a pissed off Orc (unless that orc happens to be a sorcerer... because Dragonblood makes a person supernatural in my game).

I believe we used something similar, though clerics had detectable alignment.

 

[shilsen]

Hmmm. Is mine the only game in this thread that limits alignment detection spells to supernatural creatures? Outsiders, Magical Beasts, Aberrations, Dragons, etc. Try to Detect Evil on an Orc and all you get is the equivalent of magical static and probably a pissed off Orc (unless that orc happens to be a sorcerer... because Dragonblood makes a person supernatural in my game).

The reason I do this is to encourage role-playing. There is no simple solution to new party members. The Paladin doesn't get to turn to Gustav the Scout, concentrate for a moment, and then hack him in two for detecting as evil. If you are a bad person, you prove it (or not) by your actions and nothing is so cut and dry.

Funny. I run alignment detection as evil for the same reason as you - to encourage role-playing and have PCs/players deal with moral ambiguity (which works just fine with the detect evil rules as written). What do you do when you're at a gathering of social bigwigs and half the people in the room detect as evil? What do you do when Gustav the Scout, who has saved your life umpteen times and is absolutely integral to your quest to save the world, happens to detect as evil, while those crazy so-and-so's who've been attacking you do not? If detect evil only detects supernatural evil, then it encourages PCs to take the "detect and smite" route, whereas using the detect evil rules as written encourages them to put a whole lot more thought into how they interact with alignment. The latter works for me.

 

[Rudar Dimble]

Another player once used a Detect Evil on my dwarven wizard. He was a paladin and my wizard had an undead fox as familiar.

BTW: someone once said to me Detect Evil only works on cleric and paladins, because they have an 'alignment aura' and other classes don't...this isn't true, is it? At least, the spell description doesn't mention the spell not working on a ranger, for example.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Does somebody could try to explain me why a DM should allow a LG Paladin and a Assasin NE to be in the same group ??????

Yeah, I have to go with this. If you bring an assassin into a group with a paladin and your goals for your character are anything other than being killed by the paladin, you're being unrealistic.

I generally wouldn't allow it. I have ONCE. I knew the player well, knew he could play the evil character, knew his goal was to mess with the party, and then meet his untimely demise/become an NPC at the moment of betrayal (or shortly thereafter). It worked well.

If you bring a PC whose very concept is in conflict with another PC's concept, you should not be surprised when you come into conflict.