Does Detect Evil detect evil?

[Pyrex]

The complication is that using Detect Evil is itself an evil act.

Any Paladin who uses it will automatically Fall.

How do you figure? The Detect Evil spell does not have the [Evil] descriptor, therefore casting it is not automatically an evil act.

 

[nute]

That's how it worked in 2e. In 3e, I'm pretty sure characters of the evil alignment detect as such, and their level determines how strongly they read. A 1st-10th lvl evil commoner will ping as Faintly Evil on the moral sonar, whereas a 2nd lvl evil cleric (or a 11th level evil commoner) will ping as Moderate. On the chart under Detect Evil, "Evil Creature" is synonymous with "Creatures with an Evil Alignment".

It doesn't say that anywhere in the SRD - it states "evil creature". Which does not specifically spell out "creature with an evil alignment" or "creature with the Evil subtype".

I figure it depends on how important alignment is in a campaign - if the DM decides that alignment dictates action, then it DOES describe what a character IS and should ping on Detect Evil. If actions define alignment, then it may not - it all depends on how alignment is interpreted.

Kyle Commoner lives by the law, but secretly covets his neighbor's wife, slanders his parents, etc. all the time. Should he ping on Detect Evil, since this is the hallmark of a Lawful Evil alignment?

 

[phindar]

Well, getting into the nitty-gritty on alignment is rarely helpful, we can go all day on whether or not we think specific behaviors are enough to make Kyle Commoner evil. Slandering his parents might not make him evil, it just might make him an a-hole.

But if he were Evil enough to rate Alignment: Lawful Evil, then yeah, I'd say he'd detect as faintly evil to the Detect Evil spell or ability. (At least until he breaks level 11 and becomes Moderately Evil.) I don't particularly like or agree with the D&D alignment system, and I rarely use it unmodified in any game I run, but there is one thing about it: it is unambiguous. If you're evil, you're Evil.

Granted, had the game designers (in their nigh-infinite wisdom) included either the phrase "Evil Subtype" or "Evil Alignment" in the spell description, we wouldn't have much to discuss. There is a distinction in the system between evil creatures and creatures with the [Evil] Subtype. Given that the distinction exists, what other definition of "evil creatures" is there except "creatures with the evil alignment"?

That's my take on it. If they had meant [Evil] Subtype, they would have said that. But they said "evil creatures" and in D&D, that means evilly-aligned creatures. Alignment is the mechanic that tells you who is evil, if there are exceptions to that, they'd be spelled out like they were in 2e, which specified that D. Evil didn't detect evil alignment in characters, but characters engaged in evil actions.

 

[nute]

Yay for house rules!

 

[Musrum]

How do you figure? The Detect Evil spell does not have the [Evil] descriptor, therefore casting it is not automatically an evil act.

No, I guess not. However using it on sentient creatures *is* an evil act.

Just like using a Fireball on a baby is an evil act even though there is no [Evil] descriptor in the spell.

The automatically bit kicks in when a Paladin performs an evil act...

 

[Ashardalon]

It doesn't say that anywhere in the SRD - it states "evil creature". Which does not specifically spell out "creature with an evil alignment" or "creature with the Evil subtype".

If a creature of evil alignment is not automatically an evil creature, why is the Alignment section worded the way it is?

ALIGNMENT
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

GOOD VS. EVIL
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

 

[MarkB]

The spell description spells out which creatures will not ping its detection field:

Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them.

If creatures without an alignment subtype or deity-based aura were also not subject to the spell's effect, they'd be on that list too.

 

[phindar]

No, I guess not. However using it on sentient creatures *is* an evil act.

Just like using a Fireball on a baby is an evil act even though there is no [Evil] descriptor in the spell.

Why is using Detect Evil an Evil act?

 

[MarkB]

No, I guess not. However using it on sentient creatures *is* an evil act.

Just like using a Fireball on a baby is an evil act even though there is no [Evil] descriptor in the spell.

So...

Finding out whether or not somebody is evil is considered equivalent to roasting them to death in your campaign world.


Why?

 

[phindar]

I'm going to go way, way out on a limb and say Detecting Evil is not an Evil act; however, I think in the modern viewpoint, it could be considered an invasion of privacy. This goes back to my theory that the paladin's code of conduct is best represented by what the cops on Law & Order can do. Detecting someone as Evil doesn't mean you can immediately attack them, it means you have to find out why they are evil, what specific crimes they have committed or are about to commit, and then punish them for those (possibly averted) crimes. But in a civilized setting (a large city, for instance) attacking someone or goading them into attacking you because you detected evil skirts the line of a Chaotic act.

I've always wanted to run a game that dealt with the political intrigue within a strongly Lawful Neutral church. I think it would be an interesting situation to have a paladin or LG cleric who had a LE superior within his own faith, someone he had to work against, but in a lawful way. Something like The Name of the Rose.