Is it wrong for NPCs to block a 'detect evil' check by a PC?

[moritheil]

I think, in the D&D sense, being a jerk doesn't qualify you as evil. The defining factor really seems to be whether you are willing to kill 'the innocent.' I would assume that in D&D parlance, innocence equals non-evilness.

So here's the question. If a society has access to detect evil spells, such that most any accusation of "he's evil" can be corroborated without too much trouble, why would the society not punish people for being evil? If you had proof that someone was not a good person, you would be remiss in your social duty if you did not bring this to the attention of the proper authorities. Those authorities would then look into the person's past, maybe spare a 25 gp divination to see if he had committed any significant crimes, and then assign a punishment.

This punishment could be rehabilitation in enlightened societies (basically a paladin finds a person who is not living up to the moral standards of society, and the community works to solve the person's moral failings), or mild prison sentences in most societies, with exile for repeat offenders.

And consider carefully before you go saying that this would itself be evil. If 'evil' means that you're a killer (which the D&D core rules description of alignment seems to suggest), then this method is similar to either good police work (to find criminals and punish them), or psychological examination (to find potential criminals and rehabilitate them before they hurt someone). And that's something we can all get behind.

I'm going to offer a suggestion that no one seems to have offered - it must not be cost-effective.

How much does it cost to hire NPC guards to keep order? Not much - it's definitely much cheaper than giving that kind of attention to each individual peasant (even in a population that is only 20-25% evil.) Are the results quite as good as having towns full of actually good people? No, but the government's resources are limited.

Of course, any extensive analysis of DnD economy is bound to run into nonsense after too long (lyres of building, walls of iron), so maybe that's a good reason why no one has used this angle.

 

[moritheil]

?!?!?!?!
Don't take this the wrong way, but I feel I can safely ignore you for the rest of this thread.

Ah, I think what painandgreed is trying to say is that in his campaign, it is admissible and honorable to do anything in the name of the greater good. This is different from the usual Western take on ethics, which is based on the concept that actions in and of themselves are good or evil, but I am given to believe that this angle is quite prevalent in other parts of the (real) world. Accepting for the sake of argument that concept of good and honor, a Paladin of Honor would then be permitted to do anything in the name of the greater good.

Obviously this does not sit well with reanjr's "code of honor" concept of Paladins of Honor (or, I gather, his concept of a lawful alignment.)

Though one may seem to be more in accord with the RAW, I have no desire to stir up an argument on which view is "right" by commenting here on that, so let us just say that the campaigns of the two would differ, and leave it at that.

 

[ghul]

I have a player who constantly uses his detect evil ability on a major portion of NPCs introduced to the PCs. There are times I don't want the PCs to know the alignment of a NPC, especially if the alignment in question is evil. As such, I often have the NPCs empowered with alignment-masking magic. Is this wrong? I don't let every NPC have access to the ability to mask alignment, just major NPCs that would have the resources needed to obtain such an item.

How do you keep the air of mystery around a NPC if the PCs can detect evil at first meeting?

Without reading what the others have posted, I offer this solution: humans, demi-humans, humanoids reveal shades of gray to the evil detector. Only the purest of evil or the purest of good will be detected as such, while all others remain a mystery. It allows you, the DM, to pace the details as you wish. Even a Lawful Evil magic-user has a mom, and he probably treats her kindly. Likely Charles Manson would set the buzzer off, however.


--Ghul

 

[Ibram]

My appologies for writing so unclrear but that sould be explained in the rest of the sentence and paragraph. They are not physically prohibited from commiting such acts, but there is always a cost. A paladin can commit evil acts as part of a cover as could a CG thief in their attempt to kill the evil priest and hopefully commit a greater good. They are still commiting evil acts and thier alignment would adapt accordingly. A evil assiasin that hides out and pretend the good farmer could do good acts, but unless he balanced that out with evil acts, his alignment would being to shift towords good.

So an assasin who spends five years under cover, never performing an evil act as he waits for the command to kill his target, is good until he sticks his knife in the local lord?

 

[Rystil Arden]

So an assasin who spends five years under cover, never performing an evil act as he waits for the command to kill his target, is good until he sticks his knife in the local lord?

I believe so under his system. And so is the demon cultist (not a cleric, though) who infiltrates a good church, performing all sorts of good acts to win the love and trust of the community for years, but only so she can get into position to perform her master plan to corrupt all the children of the town into drug-addicted rapists and murderers, eventually transforming as many as possible into demons through a ritual too horrid to be imagined by any but the most depraved minds and then sacrificing the rest to her dark master. In p&g's game, she pings good until she enters the final phase of her plan.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Only 20 percent? Hmph. The DMG suggests that 50 percent of NPCs should be evil.

Where does the DMG suggest that? Humans in D&D are generally classified as usually neutral, which means more than 50% are. So I go with the approximately 60% neutral, 20% good and 20% evil, though with more evil than good.

DMG, page 110, Table 4-7: Random NPC Alignment

d% Alignment
01-20 Good (LG, NG, or CG)
21-50 Neutral (LN, N, or CN)
51-00 Evil (LE, NE, or CE)

Where are humans "generally classified as usually neutral"?

 

[shilsen]

DMG, page 110, Table 4-7: Random NPC Alignment

d% Alignment
01-20 Good (LG, NG, or CG)
21-50 Neutral (LN, N, or CN)
51-00 Evil (LE, NE, or CE)

That table's just a convenience for rolling quick NPCs, rather than saying anything about the alignment tendencies of various races in D&D, IMO. That being said, I've never used these so I hadn't noticed the % scores. Thanks for the info.

Where are humans "generally classified as usually neutral"?

PHB, pg.104, Table 6-1: Creature, Race and Class Alignments.

 

[Numion]

My campaign, Grymwurld has pretty much the same ratios. And yes, slavery is condoned by the state. Paladins have a real dilemma on their hands what with balancing Law and Good. Working within the state to change evil laws? Yep, that sounds LG to me. LG is all about reforming institutions. I think we're on the same page here.

Lawful alignment doesn't mean law-abiding.

 

[reanjr]

PHB, pg.104, Table 6-1: Creature, Race and Class Alignments.

Don't have a PHB (at least not one that I can find), are halflings listed as "often neutral" in there like they are in the MM? I'm just kind of surprised that halflings would vary more than humans, I guess.

 

[shilsen]

Don't have a PHB (at least not one that I can find), are halflings listed as "often neutral" in there like they are in the MM? I'm just kind of surprised that halflings would vary more than humans, I guess.

The halflings are listed in the same category as humans (under "Neutral") in that PHB table.