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

[sckeener]

Taint of Sin

In one game I played in, the DM had a very black and white religion. Most of the population thought at one time they had sinned and were going to hell. Even the good guys in that nation wanted to hide their sins, so alignment blocking was very common.

 

[Huw]

I'm going with the view that there are so many evil people out there that detect evil is nearly useless as a tool for picking up enemies.

That innkeeper who beats his staff? Evil, but he'll still help your party if it interests him. That woman who's blackmailing the merchant? She'll still want you to rescue her son from slavery and if you do that, she'll be eternally grateful (but still evil).

Similarly, that LG guard will still arrest you trying to break into the corrupt official's house, and the CG Robin Hood type will still want to relieve you of all your valuables.

Detect evil is most useful on places and items.

 

[shilsen]

Only 20 percent? Hmph. The DMG suggests that 50 percent of NPCs should be evil. I don't think you're as cynical about human society as you think!

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.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Wow, are people really that cynical? I wouldn't expect more than 33% evil (probably a bit less, more neutral than good or evil).

For my own campaign, I go with 25% good, 50% neutral, 25% evil. And I define "evil" as encompassing the selfish, petty sorts of folk who may never actually commit a serious crime out of fear of retribution.

 

[RangerWickett]

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

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.

 

[Henrix]

My old landlord would have detected as evil.

 

[Mercule]

My old landlord would have detected as evil.

As would most landlords, IME.

In other news: Of course any reasonable bad guy is going to mask his alignment.

 

[LostSoul]

I think it's a difficult question to answer. On one hand, you don't want to spill the beans of the adventure: "Here's the Bad Guy!"

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?

I think talking to the players and seeing what kind of games they like would be the best solution. If they like struggling to solve mysteries, then block Detect Evil at will. If they like smashing in the skulls of the evildoers, don't block it. If they're half-and-half, let it go sometimes and block it other times, based on how often you block it and how much fun the players are having with Detect Evil being blocked.

 

[Sejs]

I slightly disagree on this. The fact the person has an evil aura is evidence of their crimes.

I'm showing up late to the party here, but just wanted to chime in. While I fully agree on your point concerning how it's Smite Evil, not Rehabilitate Evil or Subdue Evil, I've got to disagree with you on the evil aura = evidence of crimes point here, Frank.

Two reasons. The first is the fact that you can (particularly in the case of lawful or neutral evil) have an evil aura without actually have comitted anything that would qualify as a crime; you could just be a majorly selfish dick and waltz off with those alignments. Certainly a ping on your pala-dar would be cause for further investigation just in case, but it's far from a conviction. Second is the fact that normally unless you're undead, an evil outsider, or a cleric of an evil god, your ping can show as abnormally low depending on your HD. Level 1 NE altar boy of Vecna - weak ping; CE level 5 rogue/level 5 assassin - weak ping; level 2 LE expert moneylender who's a jerk - weak ping. Level 2 NE choir boy of Vecna - moderate ping; 2hd Lemure with a headcold - moderate ping; CE level 5 rogue/level 10 assassin/level 5 shadowdancer - moderate ping. It can be sadly unreliable at times when it comes to what should be desire to smite, as you said.

Anyway, yeah. Cheers.

 

[danzig138]

I've played D&D for over 26 years now, and I've never run across a DM that doesn't use alignment. It doesn't seem broken or silly to any of us, and enriches our games.

Every D&D game I've played in or run has used alignments. Sometimes it's been more lax than others, but it's always been there. In our OA games, the focus was more on Law v. Chaos, but it was still in use quite a bit.