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

[reanjr]

IMHO I believe that having the paladin act as judge and jury relying on the deity granted power of detect evil has a much stronger Mediaeval feel than having the paladin learning "to recogize true evil".

A paladin would be enforcing eccumenical justice, which does not have jurisdiction over most crime. It is generally limited to crimes against or by the clergy, and those directly relating to religion such as heresy and blasphemy.

In a campaign actually designed for a Medieval feel, that paladin would get himself or his church in serious trouble.

 

[reanjr]

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

Which would imply that almost all military personnel would be evil. Try getting society to back up your campaign of smiting evil after you tell them that anyone in military service is to be executed.

 

[painandgreed]

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

Except that it's a court of "Law", not a court of "Good".

I'd say that about a third of the population (plus or minus some due to culture) will end up as detecting evil. Typiclly, good societies will not oppress the evil, as they have a respect for life and other sentient being not just other good ones. If they just went around smiting all evil, then they would be no better than those they smite (although they may try and convince themselves otherwise). Even good societies will have actions that could be evil and quite legal. LE types such as the evil landlord may operate quite well in such a society. Nobody will like them, but they will not be smited because he is obeying the laws of society and only preforming actions that neutral or even good people take but he just enjoys his work. So such tactics as detecting everybody gives no real information, nor does it give reason to act.

Want to mess with the paladin? Have a neutral person committing the actions and a prominent evil one who, although evil, wishes to see the person brougt to justice. There could even be a murder mystery where a good person perfromed the murder. Good people snap also and aren't aways willing to confess their sins.

As to whether or not it is ok for an evil NPC to disguise his alignment, it's not unheard of. Most towns have clerics who can cast such spells, and it is not unlikely they might do so, particularly if something has been done that points to evil being done. Now, doing it just because you have a PC with that ability is not good. My rule of thumb is, "Would I have given said evil person such protection even if the party couldn't detect evil?" If the answer is yes, then I go ahead and give them the protection.

Of course, if evil comes in variations of degree, those degrees are related to the actions on has actually taken, and Detect Evil can determine those degees, then at a certain point, a person could be judged to be so evil that they would have preformed something worth smiting. As I run it, deeds not words make alignment. If a person values life or hates it but never actually acts upon those feelings, then they are neutral. To be good or evil requires some actual good or evil acts. To be really good or really evil requires some really good or evil acts. It also acts the other way around and good or evil people are compeled to commit actions according to their alignment or eventually suffer alignment change. An assasin that hides out in a village as a good person, cannot commit good acts as part of his cover any more than a paladin could commit evil acts to disguise his nature. If they try, their alignments will gradually lessen head to neutral, and then conform to their actions.

 

[reanjr]

As I run it, deeds not words make alignment.

While it's fine if you want to run it that way, that's not how it works in the RAW.

A creature whose alignment is listed as Always Evil is born evil. They need not commit any actions at all before their alignment and their detection is evil. Actions are entirely unneccessary, it the capactiy for action that dictates an individual's alignment.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

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.

Are you arguing that Mediaeval European society was evil? Certainly child-beating, wife-beating, servant-beating, apprentice-beating, serfdom, and oppressive taxes were acceptable. And what about the selling of indulgences? Leading people to believe that paying cash in advance for permission to sin will protect their soul?

 

[green slime]

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.

True indeed. However, as the vast majority of Evil people are really only faintly evil, and, as is obvious by above posts, the exact ratio of evil-to-good city dwellers is a point of debate, it is feasible that there are actually too many "feebly evil", "unsavory" characters in a city or town to adequately deal with them all "at this present moment", and necessitate do-gooders concentrating on more major league EVIL, and social injustices.

IMC, I guess I'd place the ratio at 10% good, 30% Neutral, and 60% Evil. The way I see it, it renders the use of in-city detection almost pointless. IMC, I have clearly expressed that slavery, is evil, and yet it is condoned by the state. Paladins work within the state to change the laws allowing slavery. There are powerful and influential individuals who want it to remain. These individuals are Evil, as are those that own slaves, yet cannot be punished by the law.

 

[Drowbane]

Yes Yes a spelling mistake doesn't take away from the point alignment is broken and silly!

spelling mistake nothing, its open mockery.

 

[painandgreed]

While it's fine if you want to run it that way, that's not how it works in the RAW.

A creature whose alignment is listed as Always Evil is born evil. They need not commit any actions at all before their alignment and their detection is evil. Actions are entirely unneccessary, it the capactiy for action that dictates an individual's alignment.

Those creature that are born evil, WILL commit evil deeds. It is their nature. Some might hide it more than others, but they will be forced by their nature to commit those acts if its alignment cannot change. I explain that in a few sentences later although I didn't expressly address creature that are born evil because, somehow, in a quickly written post, I didn't manage to cover every last bit of pre-emptive nit picking.

A paladin, upon suspecting that somebody is really an evil outsider but hiding the fact and alignment, will know that there will be some evil acts in their past to uncover as well as that it is only a matter of time before they commit more if it is true. If their alignment is evil, then they have the deeds to show it to the best of their ability. Evil fetus' will claw and kick from the womb. Evil babies will fight and scream. Such a young creature may not be that evil, no more than the evil landlord, but it will grow as it's abilty grows. Of course, with such things, you're not dealing with a normal person and normal ideas of good and evil. It's almost like an evil object and would fall under special rules anway. It will radiate evil and cause evil to happen around it.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

IMC, I guess I'd place the ratio at 10% good, 30% Neutral, and 60% Evil. The way I see it, it renders the use of in-city detection almost pointless. IMC, I have clearly expressed that slavery, is evil, and yet it is condoned by the state. Paladins work within the state to change the laws allowing slavery. There are powerful and influential individuals who want it to remain. These individuals are Evil, as are those that own slaves, yet cannot be punished by the law.

To paraphrase from Ravenloft, 'Detect evil doesn't work in the Land of the Mists because there is just too much damn evil around!'

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.

 

[reanjr]

Are you arguing that Mediaeval European society was evil?

I'd say society was evil, yes. Not necessarily the individuals in it. But the evil of society was a necessary evil to maintain order. In large societies with enemies and conquerors at every turn, a lawful evil government is way more effective than a chaotic good one.