How do YOU detect evil?

[HoboGod]

In my interpretation of Evil, you can't be Evil unless you've acknowledged and accepted the fact that you've murdered a lot of people. Regardless of how greedy any given merchant tends to be, the worst alignment he'll ever get without selling human organs in one of my games is Chaotic Neutral.

So then by that logic, Detect Evil is just a spell to keen your senses to pick up the thoughts of someone fitting the profile of a serial killer/mass murderer.

 

[radmod]

Number 2 seems silly to me as a RAW and not as a house rule, there is no talk of subtypes versus alignment in the spell and outsiders are the only creatures with the evil subtype anyway. "When it says evil creatures it doesn't actually mean creatures with an evil alignment, it means creatures with an Evil subtype."

I agree that it's silly, but that's what a friend of mine argued (paraphrased). However, I should mention that it was HIS character who was the paladin/paladin-like and he knew that some in the party were evil, so I think he was looking for a way out. However, the DM does intent so it didn't matter in this case (my LE character had just helped him out so I wasn't showing up as evil).

 

[HoboGod]

Well, alternatively he could try not to play lawful good with moron tenancies. A paladin can make allies with evil men as long it doesn't interfere with her "noble quest." It pisses me off when someone demands to purge evil from this world like some genocidal madman who has no fear and anxiety over the consequences of her actions. Even if a paladin is immune to fear, she should have common sense enough to know when is not a good time to kill somebody.

 

[radmod]

Well, alternatively he could try not to play lawful good with moron tenancies. A paladin can make allies with evil men as long it doesn't interfere with her "noble quest." It pisses me off when someone demands to purge evil from this world like some genocidal madman who has no fear and anxiety over the consequences of her actions. Even if a paladin is immune to fear, she should have common sense enough to know when is not a good time to kill somebody.

He really, really hates evil, especially undead. His moronic tendencies are intentionally part of his character that he and the DM worked on over several years. He knows it, I know it, everybody knows it. What's really funny is that his other character (same world, different campaign) is a CE pro-necromancy PC (who also is intentionally moronic - what we call chaotic insane). Now he has the problem that both characters are supposed to be working together in the same campaign.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Over the years, I've seen DMs throw out the RAW and play detect evil as they feel fits their world. I've even done detect evil one way in one world and another way in a different one, even though both worlds were played at the same time. Note: 'I' in the following arguments do not necessarily indicate the writer of this post.

RAW:
Argument 1: "Evil is evil. Whether you are a monster with the evil subtype, just plain evil monster, evil cleric, or PC whose alignment is evil, your aura is evil. That's why there's a table!"

This is RAW.
Not an arguement but a fact. But it also detects undead (even good ones).

Argument 2: "No. The 'evil' in the RAW refers to evil descriptors and goes further to spotlight evil outsiders, clerics, etc. If they meant evil to refer to PCs then they would've provided an example."

What? they list cleric and evil outsiders seperate from Alignment for a reason.
Detect Evil :: d20srd.org

It says.
1) Evil Creature (evil Clerics and outsiders have own listing)
2) Undead
3) Evil outsider
4) Cleric of evil diety
5) evil magic item /spell.

What seperate them if same thing?

Non-RAW:
Argument 3: "While I play RAW (argument 1), I adjust it according to intent. A faintly evil guy helping a little ol' lady across the street wont show up as evil - unless, of course, he's doing it so he doesn't get noticed."

Silly, but does let DM make 1/2 town evil for being jerks (not just for evil acts).

Argument 4: "Evil, except for really evil, like outsiders/clerics, means evil intent. So even if a PC is evil then he won't show up unless he's doing something evil."

Not RAW but okay.

Argument 5: "Nah, I nerfed detect evil, because I got tired of my players auto-attacking anything that shows up evil. Instead, the 'evil' thing has to actually be doing evil - like killing babies."

Again not RAW, but admitting it.

I follow RAW (#1).

 

[radmod]

This is RAW.
Not an arguement but a fact. But it also detects undead (even good ones).

I know him well enough to know his answers:
"Fact," he would scoff. "That's your interpretation. Just because you say it's fact, doesn't make it so." (even though, probably 99.99% of us agree with you)
"The spell makes it clear that you detect evil auras. Show me in the rules where it says a person of evil alignment gives off an evil aura. Only for people like evil clerics does it say they have an aura of evil."
"But wait," you might say, "why does the table have evil creatures."
"Because," he would respond, "it's a catch-all. The writers knew they couldn't cover every creature, or potential creature. So, there are creatures who are neither undead, outsiders, clerics, nor items/spells that have given themselves over to evil and would show up as such. Like the blackguard, or a non-cleric PC who is in service to an evil deity and is tainted with an evil aura."
See, you really can't say it's a fact.

What? they list cleric and evil outsiders seperate from Alignment for a reason.

"Show me," he would respond, "where it says 'alignment' in the spell. Oh, look," he might add, "why do they specifically say alignment when talking about good clerics but never say the word elsewhere."

BTW, just a nitpicky point, but your link was to the d20SRD, not SRD. Those are two different systems, technically.

Silly, but does let DM make 1/2 town evil for being jerks (not just for evil acts).

Well, most DMs (myself included) I've seen rule intent as toward the caster/detector, or an overtly evil act (like murder). Small evil acts, like cheating at cards or on your wife, they ignore.

Not RAW but okay.

Again not RAW, but admitting it.

Hence the "Non-RAW" tag.

Speaking of which, I forgot a big one:
Non-RAW:
Argument 6: "I pretty much limit it to really evil creatures because I like my PC's to roleplay what they want. Having DE go off all the time limits their abilities to do 'stuff'."

 

[Starbuck_II]

I know him well enough to know his answers:
"Fact," he would scoff. "That's your interpretation. Just because you say it's fact, doesn't make it so." (even though, probably 99.99% of us agree with you)
"The spell makes it clear that you detect evil auras. Show me in the rules where it says a person of evil alignment gives off an evil aura. Only for people like evil clerics does it say they have an aura of evil."
"But wait," you might say, "why does the table have evil creatures."
"Because," he would respond, "it's a catch-all. The writers knew they couldn't cover every creature, or potential creature. So, there are creatures who are neither undead, outsiders, clerics, nor items/spells that have given themselves over to evil and would show up as such. Like the blackguard, or a non-cleric PC who is in service to an evil deity and is tainted with an evil aura."
See, you really can't say it's a fact.

1st Hypertext D20 is the same. If you can finda difference between them point it out.

That one is easy.
Did you happen to read the Blackguard (hypothetical DM)?
Aura of Evil (Ex)

The power of a blackguard’s aura of evil (see the detect evil spell) is equal to his class level plus his cleric level, if any.

See it counts as a Cleric so it was already covered.

Now hypothetical DM might refine his stance:
But I've covered everything he put out so far.
Oh and you can't be tainted by evil unless it is a spell/abilitiy which was already covered.

 

[Voadam]

Well, alternatively he could try not to play lawful good with moron tenancies. A paladin can make allies with evil men as long it doesn't interfere with her "noble quest." It pisses me off when someone demands to purge evil from this world like some genocidal madman who has no fear and anxiety over the consequences of her actions. Even if a paladin is immune to fear, she should have common sense enough to know when is not a good time to kill somebody.

RAW paladin restriction on knowingly associating with evil adventuring buddies

Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

 

[radmod]

1st Hypertext D20 is the same. If you can finda difference between them point it out.

I did say technically. There are differences all over the place, so are you asking about wording (like ex vs. ex) or the actual rules? I know for a fact that there are some, if not many, who will not use the d20 SRD for rules but will use the SRD.

That one is easy.
Did you happen to read the Blackguard (hypothetical DM)?
Aura of Evil (Ex)

The power of a blackguard’s aura of evil (see the detect evil spell) is equal to his class level plus his cleric level, if any.

See it counts as a Cleric so it was already covered.

Um, no, even a strict reading doesn't say that to me. Now, of course, that's not how I would play it, but he would say:
"No. It says it's equal to his class level. There's nothing there that says he's automatically on the cleric chart. Only if he's also a cleric would it put him there per the spell." I'm sure pointing out that the Detect Good spell contains paladin as cleric would do no good.

Now hypothetical DM might refine his stance:
But I've covered everything he put out so far.

Trust me, he never would. He would say "you haven't yet refuted anything." Which, from the debate standpoint, I would have to agree. The problem is that he can't really refute your argument either, IMO. It's all a matter of how that particular person interprets the rules.

Oh and you can't be tainted by evil unless it is a spell/abilitiy which was already covered.

He would know this far better than I because I really haven't played these books, but don't things like Book of Vile Darkness and Champions of Ruins have vile feats (or heritage) that would 'mark/taint' you? They aren't spells, and the DE spell doesn't specifically cover abilities.

 

[Dross]

I tend to vaguely follow the Evil in alignment or type pings on the radar. Certain things don't ping, but there will be a reason for it rather than DM whim (a cleric converting from evil to non evil could alternatively ping or not ping for example).

I also go for intent, but this will generate a different feel to the evilness. It isn't going to pick up "I'd like to take a two-by-four to that idiot" but waiting in the shadows with a two-by-four waiting for said idiot will.

Both these are to (at least kinda) follow the rules and hopefully allow a bit more thought before action/role-playing.

Also, I feel that there are issues with a paly always using detect evil to go evil hunting. I just think that they need a reason.