Plot Killer: Detect evil

[DMScott]

If I had a Paladin that detected evil, found it, attacked it and slew it - I'd dock him into an ex-Paladin for it. What proof did he have that the creature had done something worthy of being killed for??

Assuming you're playing by-the-book D&D, alignments are both objective and descriptive. That means if you detect as evil, and there's no misdirection-type spells involved, you've certainly done evil acts in the past, and because it's an objective description you can make a list of what those acts could possibly be. If those acts are capital crimes according to whatever law the paladin operates under, then simply detecting as evil marks you as worthy of being killed.

That last 'if' is the important part - it's the one that'll vary from case to case. A paladin is prevented from up and killing any evil person he detects not by the 'Good' part of his alignment but by the 'Lawful' part. But for the most part, it is implied in D&D campaigns that it's OK to kill evil creatures, absent some law that protects them. That's why good adventurers break into Orc lairs on kill/loot sprees, but usually leave the Halfling lairs alone. Stripping a paladin of his abilities because he follows standard D&D conventions seems as arbitrarily silly as the paladin's act in the first place; both are unsupportable without further context.

 

[MerakSpielman]

DMscott: As has been said before, you and the player have to be on the same wavelength about what it means to be a paladin, what kind of evil shows up under detect evil, and whether spontaneous killing without due process of evildoers is a paladin's right or a mark of Chaos.

I'm going to do a write-up about the quest my paladin and his party were sent on, as an example of how paladins act in my DMs world. Give me a day or so.

The setup: A divination has revealed that on a particular day, in a particular town, an honest man is going to be slain by the plans of the law.

Our mission: Travel to the town. Investigate. See that justice is served.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

In response to an earlier post, no one knows when a Paladin is detecting evil. Its a spell-like ability and therefore doesn't use components. So you won't have the problem (in the Paladin's case) of freaking out people when you detect.

This may be inaccurate... its does require concertration, and at least three rounds to narrow it down to a particular person. Anyone with a decent sense motive or spellcraft should notice that the paladin is doing it unless he is making a bluff check to hide it. And most make no effort to hide it, in my expereince.

Kahuna burger

 

[MerakSpielman]

I'm going to do a write-up about the quest my paladin and his party were sent on, as an example of how paladins act in my DMs world. Give me a day or so.

The setup: A divination has revealed that on a particular day, in a particular town, an honest man is going to be slain by the plans of the law.

Our mission: Travel to the town. Investigate. See that justice is served.

I've written this up and posted it in Story Hour here.

enjoy!

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

Assuming you're playing by-the-book D&D, alignments are both objective and descriptive. That means if you detect as evil, and there's no misdirection-type spells involved, you've certainly done evil acts in the past, and because it's an objective description you can make a list of what those acts could possibly be. If those acts are capital crimes according to whatever law the paladin operates under, then simply detecting as evil marks you as worthy of being killed.

That last 'if' is the important part - it's the one that'll vary from case to case. A paladin is prevented from up and killing any evil person he detects not by the 'Good' part of his alignment but by the 'Lawful' part. But for the most part, it is implied in D&D campaigns that it's OK to kill evil creatures, absent some law that protects them. That's why good adventurers break into Orc lairs on kill/loot sprees, but usually leave the Halfling lairs alone. Stripping a paladin of his abilities because he follows standard D&D conventions seems as arbitrarily silly as the paladin's act in the first place; both are unsupportable without further context.

The story hour makes a good point, very much in alignment with what I was saying in my post earlier.

I think, however, you miss something above. In D&D campaigns, alignments are quite subjective to the group playing. If I, for example, had a group of adventurers break into an orcish lair, slay orcs and loot, with no provocation, I'd create a survivor of the "Chaotic Nuetral" orc camp who went to the lawful authorities to complain....

It's not just the 'lawful' that restrains the paladin, it's the 'good' too. When someone detects as 'evil' - there is only the probability that they have done crimes. Even if you confirm the evil deeds, have they been punished properly for them?

There's just too many IF's in a paladins detect evil to use it and it alone to determine guilt and decide sentence of immediate death. A specific context could indeed produce such a result, but not normally.

The story endorses what I was saying in my original post. A paladin detecting evil should only take that detections as a *guide*. I.E. It gives you a suspect, but you have to research the suspect to find something he's guilty of - and there may not be something he's guilty of either, or he may have already paid for it.

Like it or not - detection of evil is not a black/white flag of victim/victimizer just like the whole alignment system of dnd is not black and white either - but that's a different topic.

It's a lot like a real world detective finding that of his three suspects, one has a prior record for the very crime he's investigating. He's not going to arrest the guy based off that, but he's going to concentrate on him first.

 

[DMScott]

When someone detects as 'evil' - there is only the probability that they have done crimes.

Under standard D&D, that's simply not true. They're certain to have done evil; if they hadn't ever done evil, then their alignment would be something different based on what they actually had done in the past. This is why the DMG tells us that "actions dictate alignment" and the alignment change rules make it clear that changes occur as a result of actions taken. Alignment is not a statement of intent, it's a judgement based on past actions.

The story endorses what I was saying in my original post. A paladin detecting evil should only take that detections as a *guide*. I.E. It gives you a suspect, but you have to research the suspect to find something he's guilty of - and there may not be something he's guilty of either, or he may have already paid for it.

Sure, Detect Evil can't tell you who committed any particular crime or whether they've served time for it, and that's why Detect Evil isn't a plot killer IMHO. There are also often non-alignment related reasons why a Paladin can't directly act against someone who detects as evil - for example, basically Neutral human society tolerates many actions that a Paladin won't approve of, which is the source of the strain between the 'Lawful' and 'Good' parts of a Paladin's alignment. And it's also part of the fun in playing a Paladin - knowing that Duke Dastardly is an evil villain who must be stopped somehow, even as you watch him being feted and honoured at the Queen's ball.

But arguing that "hey, that guy who detects as evil might not have done anything wrong" is a non sequitur (outside the context of misdirection and equivalents, anyway) - if they hadn't done evil, they wouldn't detect as evil.

Like it or not - detection of evil is not a black/white flag of victim/victimizer just like the whole alignment system of dnd is not black and white either - but that's a different topic.

Sorry, that's 100% wrong if you're playing by the book D&D. An alignment is indeed a flag, a universal one that applies the same way to all creatures - that's why alignment-based spells from Detect Evil to Unholy Word all work. You can house-rule to change the way alignment works if you like, but if you do you really need to change or eliminate alignment-based spells. Personally, I think it's best just to chuck alignment as a game mechanic if you don't want it to have a consistent meaning - Arcana Unearthed does so quite successfully.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I'm agreeing with DMScott here, but "action" is kind of a loose word. In my story, for instance, the Sheriff carefully kept his hands clean of any actual misdoing. He never actually asked the poisonmaker to fill an order, or for his deputy to rig the contest, but he hinted strongly that this is what he wanted to happen. He wanted to be able to have as much leeway under a Zone of Truth or Detect Lies as possible. If asked "Did you order this" he could have legitimately said "no."

Smart evil people will operate behind the scenes and try to distance themselves from whatever evil acts are commited in their name. They might even do good when other people are watching, but their very motive for doing good is in itself evil.

So, evil actions include such non-direct things as strongly hinting to your bodyguard, "Gosh, I wish that troublemaker would just go away." and just 'happening' to give him a bonus after he does the dirty work.