Paladin's Detect Evil

[Kahuna Burger]

Imo too many people use "too weak" alignments. With that I mean that only being not nice makes you evil. That is not the alignment D&D uses. To be evil in D&D you have to be hardcore evil (murder, rape, demon summoning to do one of the former things, etc) and not simply kick a dog once a week.

Could you support this assertion on "the alignment D&D uses"? I wouldn't question it if you said you played your game this way, but if you're going to claim it as the way D&D is meant to be played, some cites might help.

It also means that someone detecting evil is enough for paladins to start smiteing as everyone who is evil is a real bastard who deserves to be dead.

So do you houserule the part about neutral clerics of Evil deities detecting as evil, or the part about allowing neutral clerics of evil deities?

 

[Derren]

Could you support this assertion on "the alignment D&D uses"? I wouldn't question it if you said you played your game this way, but if you're going to claim it as the way D&D is meant to be played, some cites might help.

Just read the alignment description in the PHB. To be evil you need to debase and/or destroy innocent life. Being a jerk is not on that list.
Also the whole alignment system makes much more sense when you use serious alignments and not wimp alignment.

So do you houserule the part about neutral clerics of Evil deities detecting as evil, or the part about allowing neutral clerics of evil deities?

No. The person itself might not do worse enough things to be considered evil, but serving and therefore strengthening evil deities is enough reason for a paladin to be allowed to smite (although he won't get his smite bonus). Reformation would be the prefered method instead of killing in such a case but the paladin would not fall if he simply killed the cleric instead.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Just read the alignment description in the PHB. To be evil you need to debase and/or destroy innocent life. Being a jerk is not on that list.

I have read the description and from it comes my disagreement with you. Being a wife beater, a potential rapist held back only by fear of punishment or someone who humiliates others for sport does qualify without being suited to the death penalty. ("jerk" is, of course, a strawman undercutting the seriousness of your own argument.)

"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."

A person who hurts others in every small way they can get away with within their own level of power and would kill if convenient can still be seen as evil.

Also the whole alignment system makes much more sense when you use serious alignments and not wimp alignment

"serious" and "wimp" again undercuts your argument as something to be taken seriously rather than supporting it.

 

[Derren]

You forget that alignment in D&D is based on actions not intend. Someone who wants to do evil but doesn't do it is not evil. To be evil someone must have done evil. And the alignment description in the PHB rather clearly says that to become evil you have to do some seriously evil acts (don't forget that 1 act alone is not enough to change someones alignment).

Someone in D&D who is evil has murdered, "tortured" (hurt) or oppressed (in a evil way) and not simply thought about it. Debase or Destroy innocent lives are the key words. As long as those things aren't fulfilled the acts are "not nice" but not evil.

And "Jerk" is in no way a strawman argument. Many DMs rule that a merchant who overcharges for his goods is evil or a thief who steals from other people is evil but non of those things are. They are not nice (which makes those people jerks) but as those acts don't debase or destroy innocent live they are neutral.
You have to accept that you can't compare D&D evil with real life "evil" (=Things you would define as evil in reality which normally is everything which is not nice).

 

[Hypersmurf]

You forget that alignment in D&D is based on actions not intend. Someone who wants to do evil but doesn't do it is not evil. To be evil someone must have done evil. And the alignment description in the PHB rather clearly says that to become evil you have to do some seriously evil acts (don't forget that 1 act alone is not enough to change someones alignment).

"Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies..."

"For most people, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose."

"On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG). Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook."

Looks to me like an alignment can represent personality type, personal philosophy, attitude, and outlook... not necessarily just a record of your actions.

If someone who has committed many evil acts - who undeniably had, yesterday, an evil alignment - has undergone an epiphany, and has just sworn to devote herself life and soul to championing Good, fighting Evil, and saving orphans and puppies - and she is sincere in her change of heart - do you consider her alignment to be Evil, Neutral, or Good?

She has performed many evil actions. She has, as yet, performed no good actions, though she has resolved to do so in future.

I'd have no qualms about labelling her alignment as Good.

-Hyp.

 

[DM-Rocco]

Generally by the book... though it only ever really comes up if they're using it in battle... most people just think its odd when the guy in full plate keeps staring at em...

Edit: Ooo, I beat the 'alignment sucks, our paladin's dont use it' people!

What!?!

The Paladin in our groups use it all the time. I mean ALL the time.

"I'll take an ale you none evil bar wench."

"I won't except your offer you evil bastard. Find someone else to trick into your quest and then betray."

I think it is one of the most broken things in the game. It is really hard to have someone trick the PCs if they are evil. Paladins suck for that. I hate DMing them. But I do, if the PC wants to play one.

 

[shilsen]

I think it is one of the most broken things in the game. It is really hard to have someone trick the PCs if they are evil. Paladins suck for that. I hate DMing them. But I do, if the PC wants to play one.

I think you're not trying hard enough. Firstly, the Detect Evil ability is really easy to beat/fool, with magic items (Ring of Mind Shielding) or low level spells (Undetectable Alignment, Misdirection, Nondetection). Secondly, not only evil people but neutral and even good people shoudl sometimes trick the PCs. And evil people should sometimes be completely honest and trustworthy with the PCs. Unless you're running a campaign with completely black-and-white and simplistic morality, where good people always help out the PCs and never have their own agendas and evil people are always out to screw them, Detect Evil does very little to help avoid the PCs being tricked.

I run an Eberron campaign with lots of skullduggery, wheels behind wheels behind wheels, multiple shades of gray, for a PC group involving a paladin who not only Detects Evil a lot but also can Detect Thoughts multiple times a day due to a PrC feature. That hasn't prevented the PCs being duped, manipulated, betrayed, etc. Everyone in my game world, whether good, evil or neutral, has their own agendas, which color their choices, actions and beliefs. There's a standing joke in the campaign that the evil guys are the only ones the PCs really trust. And we've had encounters where NPCs have sat down with the PCs, looked the paladin in the eye and said, "Look - I'm evil and I know it. So would you just Detect Evil on me and get it over with, so we can get on with business?"

Detect Evil, used exactly as written, is not at all a problem. IMNSHO, of course. YMMV, and apparently does.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

You forget that alignment in D&D is based on actions not intend.

I'm afraid I can't "forget" to hold your personal opinion. But you have clarified your personal take on alignment, which is helpful. Asserting it as the true way D&D is was not, but it happens more often than not on messageboards.