Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="phindar" data-source="post: 3362456" data-attributes="member: 37198">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.&nbsp; Slandering his parents might not make him evil, it just might make him an a-hole.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; (At least until he breaks level 11 and becomes Moderately Evil.)&nbsp; I don't particularly like or agree with the D&amp;D alignment system, and I rarely use it unmodified in any game I run, but there is one thing about it: it is unambiguous.&nbsp; If you're evil, you're Evil.Granted, had the game designers (in their nigh-infinite wisdom) included either the phrase &quot;Evil Subtype&quot; or &quot;Evil Alignment&quot; in the spell description, we wouldn't have much to discuss.&nbsp; There is a distinction in the system between evil creatures and creatures with the [Evil] Subtype.&nbsp; Given that the distinction exists, what other definition of &quot;evil creatures&quot; is there except &quot;creatures with the evil alignment&quot;?&nbsp; That's my take on it.&nbsp; If they had meant [Evil] Subtype, they would have said that.&nbsp; But they said &quot;evil creatures&quot; and in D&amp;D, that means evilly-aligned creatures.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="phindar, post: 3362456, member: 37198"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification