Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tilla the Hun (work)" data-source="post: 1199888" data-attributes="member: 14214">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.&nbsp; In D&amp;D campaigns, alignments are quite subjective to the group playing.&nbsp; 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 &quot;Chaotic Nuetral&quot; 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.&nbsp; When someone detects as 'evil' - there is only the probability that they have done crimes.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; A specific context could indeed produce such a result, but not normally.The story endorses what I was saying in my original post.&nbsp; A paladin detecting evil should only take that detections as a *guide*.&nbsp; I.E.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; He's not going to arrest the guy based off that, but he's going to concentrate on him first.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tilla the Hun (work), post: 1199888, member: 14214"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification