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

[danzig138]

Maybe have his deity revoke his ability to detect evil until he learns to recognize true evil without it?

That's the best atonement I've seen suggested for an overly free-handed use of Detect Evil.

 

[Umbran]

There are times I don't want the PCs to know the alignment of a NPC, especially if the alignment in question is evil.

I'm going to take this from a slightly different angle.

Generally speaking, what you, the DM want, probably shouldn't be the issue. Specifically trying to control the information the players have for purposes of influencing the plot is one of the usual first steps on the slippery slope of "railroading", which tends to lessen the fun of the game. Specifically setting out to keep a player from using a power that you, as DM, allowed them to have just because you find it inconvenient isn't very fair. Stop worrying about what you want.

What you can do is worry about what the NPCs want. If the NPC is aware of their alignment, and methods of detection and blocking, and would find protection of value, then they'd seek protective magics just as the PCs do.

But remember, if folks going around castign Detect Evil are not common, then the risk of detection is generally low, and some NPCs would not find protection worth the effort.

And also, turn it around - NPCs can use Detect Good to take note of who might make trouble for them. The villains may see them coming, or the local constabulary may then see the PCs as expendable tools to use to deal with their own problems....

 

[danzig138]

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.

It seems in this example, you focused on the "killing others" but ignored the "hurting, oppressing" part. This goes back to the bar keep who maybe smacks his staff around a bit. Maybe he's just tyrannical in boss status. Doesn't hurt them but oppresses them - bad hours, ill wages, etc. Evil? Possibly. Smite worthy? Probably not. Quite probably not even criminal investigation or charge worthy.

What about the bouncer at the bar? His job is to ensure the establishment remains orderly - this sometimes requires hurting others. What if he likes it? What if that's why he took the job? He wanted a legal way to smack others around. Perfectly legal job - still, he might be evil. Again, not auto-detect-smite worthy.

It's just not as simple as you would have it in your example, or as Frank the DM would have it in his games. At least not IMO. This is one of those issues that, more than most, is something that seems to fall on the DM's shoulders - he has to decide how and what is evil in his games, and then try to explain that to the players, so as to avoid future DE mishaps. I have to say, if I played a paladin in a game where simply detecting as evil gave me the right to smite - my character's name would be Smitey Smiterson.

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.

And, no, finding potential criminals in order to rehabilitate them before they do something isn't something we can all get behind. See warning signs and try to get them help? Yes. But what you said doesn't imply that. What you said is a little too thought crimey for my tastes. And I think it would be for a good portion of the actually-Good societies in a game (using the standard D&D setting/modern morality).

 

[Umbran]

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.

Er, as stated, no, this is not "fact". How behavior impacts alignment is not well-dictated by the rules. It is dependant upon the DM's interpretation for the given campaign, so it isn't a given fact everywhere.

There are a couple of ways dictated by the rules to show up as Evil without having committed evil acts - one is magical deception. Another is to be a non-Evil cleric of an Evil deity. Another is to be undead.

 

[BOZ]

nondetection is a wonderful thing, as is undetectable alignment.

 

[gizmo33]

Anyone, with enough twisting and turning, and make the alignment system work in their game. I'm just not sure why they want to. People can't actually agree on what "good" and "evil" really mean and if they could, the last 5,000 years of human history would be incomprehensible.

IMO, if a campaign world were to approximate human nature, than even the most progressive societies would develop a "detect evil" radar gun and use it to fine people for being evil. When people disagree with that, I can hardly believe that we live on the same planet.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

2) Since detect evil doesn't tell you what a person has done, a Paladin probably cannot act on just the detect evil ability, unless he has a code of conduct which requires neither a fair trial nor witnessing the crime prior to execution. So, if a Paladin just attacks a person based solely on an evil alignment, it may be enough to strip him of his Paladin powers, or could at least earn him a stern warning. Maybe have his deity revoke his ability to detect evil until he learns to recognize true evil without it?

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". I like running campaigns with a Mediaeval European morality and ethics. But it appears that I'm in the minority at least here at ENworld. I'm OK with that. Other DMs are free to run their games as they choose. I just personally don't like modern campaigns masquerading as Mediaeval or Ancient. Similarly I can't stand Hercules/Xena and other shows in that vein.

Unfortunately this takes us closer to the "evil orc babies" debate rather than whether or not it is wrong for NPCs to block detection spells. I believe that NPCs will always use the tools at their disposal. If they think that they will be exposed to a detect evil spell, believe that it will have a detrimental impact to them, and they are willing to spend the money then by all means let them do it. But make sure that the player knows that such obfuscation can happen. Otherwise they'll feel cheated.

My 2 farthings…

 

[Umbran]

Anyone, with enough twisting and turning, and make the alignment system work in their game. I'm just not sure why they want to.

Why do we want ot play a game where people can chop up seven orcs in seconds, or thorw balls of fire from our fingers. If we wanted to closely approximate the real world, would we be playing a fantansy role-playing game? Some of us like fantasies that include this alteration to the moral landscape.

Why is this so hard for folks to grasp?

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

IMO, if a campaign world were to approximate human nature, than even the most progressive societies would develop a "detect evil" radar gun and use it to fine people for being evil. When people disagree with that, I can hardly believe that we live on the same planet.

Hear, hear! I also question why in the world would anyone populate their game worlds with "progressive", utopian if you will, societies?!? Most posters at ENworld that I've read contend that D&D is a game about killing monsters and taking their treasure. Would not a "progressive" society demand that the monsters be incarcerated and rehabilitated instead? Would the society not demand that the loot be returned to its rightful owners? And if that's not possible, then donated to a charity? Sounds like a very different game to me. In my 29 years of D&D gaming, there has been nothing in the RAW to indicate that D&D is anthing other than black & white morality. If you don't like alignments, get rid of them. If you don't like detect evil, get rid of it. If you don't like paladins, get rid of them. It's your game after all. But to suggest that a paladin cannot smite someone just because they detect as Evil is equivalent to say that a paladin cannot attack a red dragon until he has proof that the red dragon has committed an evil act. I can see it now. . . .

"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

 

[AuraSeer]

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?

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. The latter will be far more common. It would take an awful lot of resources to cast divinations on every cruel-hearted person in the world, just to find the minority who have committed crimes worthy of punishment.

The spell also does not detect when a criminal has already been punished. Say Joe the landlord liked to oppress his tenants in illegal ways, which turned him NE and also got him arrested. He just got out of prison after serving his full 10-year sentence. His slate is clean as far as the law is concerned, yet he still detects as evil. Would you have him arrested and investigated every time he goes out in public?

Come to think of it, if you do arrest somebody for being evil, what do you do with him? If you imprison him, he'll probably still be evil when he comes out. (There aren't too many opportunities for good deeds, in prison.) Paying a fine won't remove the stain from his soul, nor will even magical punishments like mark of justice or geas. Does drifting into evil alignment instantly make someone a pariah for life?