Using Detect Evil/Good

[LightPhoenix]

Well, Hypersmurf touched on what I believe would be the difference between Good and Neutral.

Someone Neutral would probably be okay with killing a criminal or smiting someone evil without hesitation.

Someone Good would be more interested in redemption if possible. Obviously in some cases this isn't possible, but I can't imagine a Good character not trying if they thought it was possible. Eadric from Sep's story hour strikes me as the definition of Good - he tries reason and redemption before violence and judgement whenever possible.

 

[jessemock]

Dead wrong for two reasons:

(2) Not all evil acts are deserving of death. That should be obvious.

But all evilly aligned creatures are worthy of a good smiting.

Mechanically, effects that rely on alignment don't discriminate between degrees of evil. It isn't obvious that not all evil acts or creatures demand or deserve death, if good gods and weapons and spells and such keep killing them.

Core-wise, it's true that movement from good to evil alignment occurs, and, reasonably, the reverse would happen as well. So what? Until the rehabilitation has taken place, a guy still radiates that certain special aura we all know and love, and evil-affecting mechanics still affect his evil.

If the gods want me to rehabilitate somebody, they should stop helping me to kill him.

Assuming the D&D distribution of alignments, roughly 25-30% of the general human population is evil aligned.

Wha? Where's this coming from? The alignment system doesn't reflect percentage of the population.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

But all evilly aligned creatures are worthy of a good smiting.

Mechanically, effects that rely on alignment don't discriminate between degrees of evil. It isn't obvious that not all evil acts or creatures demand or deserve death, if good gods and weapons and spells and such keep killing them.

Good gods and good weapons and good spells are almost as effective at wiping out Neutral people. Does that mean my paladin gets to kill them, too?

 

[BSF]

I have you agree with you KM, I have read the Detect Evil description many times, and I don't see anywhere it states it would detect a character with a Neutral Evil alignment as a "evil creature". The description in the PHB is way too vague to make a case for or against this, so I just houserule it and say it ONLY detects creatures with an evil subtype (demons, devils, undead, some elementals and faeries), and the rare cleric of an evil deity. I think the ability is more interesting this way, and much less prone to player abuse. I don't understand the stong resistance some people seem to have to interpreting things as you see fit or rewriting things for your game- it is YOUR game afterall.

This is true. It is all open to personal interpretation. However, I would find it silly that a Detect Evil doesn't work against an Evil-aligned Human if Protection from Evil offered any protection against the same human.

By extension, you cannot use Protection from Good on your BBEG to provide AC and Save bonuses against the majority of the people in your PC's parties.

If Detect Evil/Detect Good does not offer information on alignment, then Protection spells should not offer any bonuses based on alignment. Nor should the Dispel spells offer protective value to recipients. All of these spells dictate that they work against Evil/Good/Lawful/Chaotic creatures. If having the appropriate alignment is not enough to qualify, it should be that way unilaterally.

Holy Smite and a Paladin's Smite Evil (And a Blackguard's Smite Good) use the same wording as well. Holy Word specifies that it works against non-good creatures. It isn't the same wording, but it is similar. Once again, a unilateral application should occur to maintain consistency. Otherwise, your players are going to want to know why a human with an evil alignment is not evil for Detect Evil, but is evil under other circumstances.

Personally, I think my player's would hate that. So, in my games, having the appropriate alignment pings you as that type of creature. Otherwise, I am shutting down the effects of several spells because one spell is inconvenient to me. Of course, you don't need to maintain the same internal consistency in your campaign, but I think it bears mentioning that there is a grouping of spells that depends on the "evil creature" mechanic and you should keep that in mind for your rulings for your game.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Sure it does. And it does so explicitly in the case of every creature other than humans.

From the 3e MM p. 12. "Alignment, this entry giest hte alignment that the creature is most likely to have.... Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures' origin... Often: This creature tends toward the listed alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment but exceptions are common."

Now, I suppose I'm carrying my analysis of human society over from the days of 2e when humans actually had a listed alignment but in most societies it would be "Often neutral." In that case, it's reasonable to assume that the remaining 60% is reasonably evenly distributed among the remaining alignements. If 40% is neutral, that's 60% to divide between the remaining 8 alignments. That's 22.5% of the population that's evil.

In no case, is human society likely to be more strongly alignend than "Usually X". Even in that case, somewhere from 10-49% of the population isn't alignment X and it is probably reasonable to assume that a good portion of the not usually X is evil. If even one in five non X (where X is some kind of good) person were evil, that would represent about a 10% evil population in one of the most strongly good human societies plausible.

Wha? Where's this coming from? The alignment system doesn't reflect percentage of the population.

 

[Tonguez]

Thats how its done imc

IMNSHO the Good/Evil etc spells are intended specifically to affect those with the Evil/Good Descriptor so protection from Evil does not keep Viktor the NE human theif away from your pocket, however it does keep Viktor the Vampire at bay.

Smite is supposed to employed by the Forces of Good when faced with Demons from the dark abyss, it is not to be used to behead Viktor the thief who stole a loaf of pumpernickel

As to Holy word working against Non-Good creatures thats creatures with Evil/Neutral descriptors (not alignments) plus IMC invoking something like Holy Word IS going to bowl the PCs over as well - afterall you've just summoned the power of your god! - there really ought to be repuccusions (like your freind the dwarf warlock is now blinded for 1d4 rnds).

This is true. It is all open to personal interpretation. However, I would find it silly that a Detect Evil doesn't work against an Evil-aligned Human if Protection from Evil offered any protection against the same human.

By extension, you cannot use Protection from Good on your BBEG to provide AC and Save bonuses against the majority of the people in your PC's parties.

If Detect Evil/Detect Good does not offer information on alignment, then Protection spells should not offer any bonuses based on alignment. Nor should the Dispel spells offer protective value to recipients. All of these spells dictate that they work against Evil/Good/Lawful/Chaotic creatures. If having the appropriate alignment is not enough to qualify, it should be that way unilaterally.

Holy Smite and a Paladin's Smite Evil (And a Blackguard's Smite Good) use the same wording as well. Holy Word specifies that it works against non-good creatures. It isn't the same wording, but it is similar. Once again, a unilateral application should occur to maintain consistency. Otherwise, your players are going to want to know why a human with an evil alignment is not evil for Detect Evil, but is evil under other circumstances.

 

[Tonguez]

Now, I suppose I'm carrying my analysis of human society over from the days of 2e when humans actually had a listed alignment but in most societies it would be "Often neutral." In that case, it's reasonable to assume that the remaining 60% is reasonably evenly distributed among the remaining alignements. If.

Um I'd personally say that its not reasonable to assume an even distribution across the alignments and I'd suspect something more akin to a bell curve occuring so that practically all mostly neutral types cluster around Neutral (LN - NG-N-NE-CN)

 

[Hypersmurf]

As to Holy word working against Non-Good creatures thats creatures with Evil/Neutral descriptors (not alignments)...

Holy Word says "Non-Good", but Holy Smite uses the phrase "evil or neutral creatures".

If you take that to mean "Creatures with the [Evil] or [Neutral] subtype"...

... could you provide an example of a creature with the [Neutral] subtype?

Just one would be fine.

-Hyp.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Thats how its done imc

IMNSHO the Good/Evil etc spells are intended specifically to affect those with the Evil/Good Descriptor so protection from Evil does not keep Viktor the NE human theif away from your pocket, however it does keep Viktor the Vampire at bay.

Why?
Vampires don't have the Evil descriptor.

Only outsiders have alignment descriptors.

Geoff.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Vampires don't have the Evil descriptor.

Only outsiders have alignment descriptors.

Oops

-Hyp.