Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3208119" data-attributes="member: 30001">"Ridiculously easy" I think depends on the campaign - seems a little like internet hyperbole.  Casting spells IMC is not "ridiculously easy", 99% of the population can't do what you're suggesting is ridiculously easy - and even if they can they're not likely to be doing it at the time the paladin detects evil on them.  Also - I was talking about a lie detector test vs. detect evil when I was saying that the spell tells you how to interpret the results.  The example was a movie where one character wants to know if another character is a good match for marrying his daughter.  Assuming that the lie detector is infallible, to use the lie detector test to tell if someone is "good" or not involves first having to define a set of questions that would define good/evil.  Different people would conceivably come up with a different set of questions.  This is not the case with Detect Evil.  Detect Evil gives you an answer according to a universal definition.We could theoretically go back and forth - you cast some sort of "false alignment" spell, I would make you step through an anti-magic zone first, etc.  In the end, I think it's easier to detect alignment than it is to mask it.   Should he distinguish?  Seems like the spell is pretty much saying that excessive taxes and mass-murdering are morally equivalent (which was my point with the "lie detector" situation above).  Otherwise, the evil that the paladin is supposed to fight is somehow different from the evil that the spell detects?  In the real world that could be the topic of a debate, but in a world with Detect Evil your example IMO says clearly what the answer is.  That depends on the society.  In the real world all socieities that have the death penalty give that power to one or more human beings without any magic power at all.  They're just supposed to use their judgement on the matter.  Outside of the game of Dungeons and Dragons, as I've said, the label "evil" is generally reserved for those things that the society feels are worthy of destruction.  Yea, I would say that anything I've said about using spells on behalf of society would only apply to spell-users that were sanctioned by that society.  I wouldn't expect a paladin to walk in out of the wilderness, start accusing various people of being evil, and get very far with that.  However, consider the example of the use of radar for "detecting" people's speeds on the highway.IMO that's a campaign-specific decision - a paladin is expected to not associate with evil, that's pretty clearly violated as soon as you uphold an evil person's place in society.Yea, lawful evil.  I find "associating with evil" far less ambiguous than "legitimate authority".  IMO the reasonable interpretation here is that the paladin should leave said kingdom, find some good enemies of that kingdom and join them.  In that way he's neither associating with evil, nor are the tax collectors a "legitimate authority" over the paladin.  IMO you're suggesting that in a Lawful Evil kingdom, a paladin would uphold Lawful pratices - like human sacrifice.  Forget about tax farming, that's morally ambiguous.  However, when it comes to human sacrifice we'd more readily agree that it's evil, and yet it seems to me that the same exact principles apply as in your tax farmer example - which means that in your imaginary kingdom the paladin, if charged with the task of going to the house of the person to be sacrificed this year, would have to do it.  IMO that would be understandably distasteful to the majority of people that play paladins (and also violates the code in a key place).</blockquote>

Verification