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

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Or I'd play some sort of con artist who tried to convince people he was a paladin, and make them give up cash and women or be smote for haveing detected as evil. Small communities only. No big places where it could be easily verified or not.

In the Real Middle Ages™ there were con artists who would sell indulgences. Unlike the real clergy who sold authentic indulgences. In fact papal indulgences was big business in the 14th century. Every sin had a price. Sincere repentance was much less common.

And during the witch hysteria of the late 16th and early 17th centuries, there were con artists claiming to be witch-smellers who blackmailed people extensively. So your con artist claiming to be a paladin is right in line.

 

[green slime]

"Your honour, these adventurers snuck into my client's home, assaulted him while he was sleeping and stole all of his hard earned hoard of gold and magic items." -- Dragon's attorney

Nice try If the entire court, paladin and everyone else is colour blind, maybe....

But there is a more than slight distinction in the game between creatures which are "Always Evil", and ordinary common garden city dwellers.

 

[RangerWickett]

As pointed out earlier in this thread, an evil aura doesn't say what bad things the person has done. The spell will detect a depraved serial killer who eats babies every night for dinner, but it will also detect an ordinary merchant who misleads his customers on occasion.

Except that, by the way good, evil, and neutral are presented in the PHB, the defining factor of evil is your willingness to kill innocents, while the defining factor of good is your willingness to make sacrifices to help others. Note that 'killing' is discussed about seven times in the section I quoted, whereas hurting and oppressing are just mentioned once.

I don't think a rude, abusive, or greedy person would detect as evil by the rules.

 

[green slime]

Except that, by the way good, evil, and neutral are presented in the PHB, the defining factor of evil is your willingness to kill innocents, while the defining factor of good is your willingness to make sacrifices to help others. Note that 'killing' is discussed about seven times in the section I quoted, whereas hurting and oppressing are just mentioned once.

I don't think a rude, abusive, or greedy person would detect as evil by the rules.

Being willing to kill innocents, is however, not the same as actually committing the act. Whether it is from fear of being caught, or incompetence, inability, lack of opportunity, a desire to meld in and bide one's time, or any one of another million reasons. Evil, yet no act committed yet. Wiling to act, but not given the ample opportunity. Hurting and oppressing others are just milder degrees of the same sickness.

 

[Uder]

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?

In a lawful society, there might be laws in place preventing the use of detect evil. In addition, unless you have a "god squad," you only have the word of the cleric or paladin at hand. Outside of metagaming players, a group of people hearing that someone has detected as evil will form their own opinions, perhaps even turning the accusation back on the caster. In fact, abuse of detect evil by evil persons (and faked detect evil spells) might be what led to laws against the spell being in place.

 

[reanjr]

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.

Evil is also hurting and oppressing people. If you beat your child, you are hurting and you are evil. If you are a noble who profits off of the peasantry by creating laws to keep them there, you are oppressing and you are evil. In a medieval style society, child-rearing is acceptably performed through corporal punishment. The entire feudal government system breaks down without systemic oppression.

 

[IcyCool]

On the other hand, if you're always going to nix Detect Evil, or just when it matters, what's the point of having the ability at all?

You could always use it for its primary purpose, detecting valid targets for your Smite Evil ability.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Nice try If the entire court, paladin and everyone else is colour blind, maybe....

But there is a more than slight distinction in the game between creatures which are "Always Evil", and ordinary common garden city dwellers.

I completely agree with you. That's why the whole "creatures aren't evil, only certain actions are evil" argument is absurd. Simply being a "dragon of colour" is a crime worthy of capital punnishment according to D&D morality.

As for the garden city dwellers, their actions and choices are what have made them evil (according to D&D). I argue that in D&D, the paladin doesn't have to research why they became evil, it is enough that they are in fact evil. A DM may dictate that since Humans are not inherently evil (like orcs & ogres) that the paladin would attempt to rehabilitate them. Regardless, the paladin has an obligation to act upon that detection of evil.

 

[reanjr]

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.

No, that's something all fascists can get behind. You're talking about pre-crime in the parlance of sci-fi. Killing others who have done no wrong is evil. This is societally accepted. Imprisoning those who have done no wrong is evil. You can't justify it with a detect evil any more than modern forensic psychologists can justify it with a criminal psychological profile.

Crime, punishment, and justice are only rightfully based on action. To have thought-law is be oppressive, which is to be evil (as stated in the SRD).

 

[Ciaran]

Except that, by the way good, evil, and neutral are presented in the PHB, the defining factor of evil is your willingness to kill innocents, while the defining factor of good is your willingness to make sacrifices to help others. Note that 'killing' is discussed about seven times in the section I quoted, whereas hurting and oppressing are just mentioned once.

I don't think a rude, abusive, or greedy person would detect as evil by the rules.

So you're saying that because hurting and oppressing are just mentioned once, that they should be ignored completely? That hurting and oppressing are not, in fact, sufficient to make someone evil?