Using Detect Evil/Good

[BSF]

Yep I use copious lots of fiendish and celestial creatures (including half-x) but actually don't use many undead other than disembodied types and the occasional ghoul (I only used Viktor the vampire as an example cause I had just finished watching Underworld ) I've never used a Vamp imc .
And yeah I pretty much use the detect evil list as the default in deciding on what is/isn't affected

Interesting. It doesn't sound as if I have anywhere near as many Outsiders in my game as you do in yours. As it is, the Detect/Protection type spells wouldn't get hardly any use in my game. In the last game, it would have been applicable to undead.

For now, I will keep allowing Detect/Protection spells to work based on alignment. But, I may run a different style campaign in the future and this thread has certainly given me different things to think about.

 

[Saeviomagy]

My suggestion:

Don't ban detect evil.

Don't modify it so it only detects truely evil creatures.

Use your brain. Read the alignments.

Not everyone who dupes the party will be evil. Robin hood robbed the rich to give to the poor, and is generally considered to be chaotic good. The PC's are almost certainly rich way beyond what they need to survive.

Not everyone who does bad things is evil. Doubt me? Then take a look at some of the debates over alignment shifts on these boards - it's generally agreed that a single incidence of an evil act, unless totally overt, is only a step towards an evil alignment. Which means that the perpetrator isn't going to be evil yet.

 

[DMScott]

So why don't the other lines read "Creature", "Outsider", etc?

Since I'm not responsible for WOTC's labelling choices on their tables, I don't know. Expecting me to know is a bit like me expecting you to know why the text of the spell says it detects "evil creatures" instead of "some evil creatures and some neutral creatures as shown in the table below". I don't expect that of you because so far as I know, you're not responsible for that text. In both cases, I would guess the answer is they were a bit sloppy with the wording.

And does that mean that a neutral cleric of an evil deity doesn't show up in your campaign, since he's not of evil alignment and thus the table is never consulted?

Yup. Neutral clerics aren't "evil creatures", so they don't get pinged by detect evil in my campaign. I can't recall any time that's been a particularly important distinction.

 

[Norfleet]

What, exactly, is the argument here? From my reading of this thread, there doesn't seem to be a consistent line of argument here.

Are we arguing about the mechanistic legalities of exactly what, by the book, pings and does not ping on Detect Evil? That seems to be what some of these posts discuss, although from what I gather, it appears that everyone has a different interpretation of what does and doesn't occur for the spell/ability in their own campaign.

Or are we arguing about whether or not detect->smite is a valid thing for a paladin to regularly engage in? This argument makes absolutely no sense in light of the above, the fact that nobody can actually agree on what causes detect evil to ping in the first place: Since everyone runs their detect evil differently, it's obvious that whether or not Detect->Smite is a paladinly act must vary depending on how Detect Evil is treated. If Detect Evil pings only [Evil] creatures, disguised demons and whatnot that are Always Evil, then it would make sense that when Detect Evil pings, you've found one of those, and smiting is in order. On the other hand, if Detect Evil is viewed as pinging on every other Tom, Dick, and Harry, then it's probably not appropriate to go on a Detect-and-Smite rampage. Besides, Paladins are LAWFUL Good. Being "evil" is not really a crime, so it's hardly lawful to go around killing people for something which isn't a crime. If some "evil" orc tribes live nearby, on lands rightly deemed to belong to them by all parties, and never actually attacks or raids anyone else, preferring instead to spend most of their time engaged in squabbles with each other, is a paladin entitled to go and invade their lands, attack them, and kill them merely because they are "evil"? Probably not, unless your campaign classifies orcs in the same category as demons.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You want to formulate an ethical reductio ad absurdum: evil can't always mean 'deserving of execution' because the consequences are ethically unacceptable: too many people would deserve execution.

Actually, all other errors in your post aside, that is not exactly what I did.

I advanced several arguments. Some were consequentialist arguments (that good consequences can make deeds good and bad consequences can make them bad). That argument went like this: Killing all evil people would do more harm to society than it would provide in benefits. That's not a reductio ad absurdum. It's straightforward application of the idea behind "the greatest good for the greatest number." (And couched in generic terms so as not to depend upon any particular formulation of utilitarianism).

From a natural law perspective, I think it could be framed as saying that the universe is crafted in such a manner as to reward good and that evil bears natural punishments. Since killing all evil people would appear to naturally preclude any functional society, that would

Intertwined in that argument was an argument based on the necessity of order: Traditionally, societies have recognized that killing everyone they recognized as evil would not be right. And attempting to do so would work a negative transformation upon society. So it is likely that someone killing all evil people would have to work outside the structures of society--and would thereby undermine them. Any lawful and good character would have to consider the undermining effect of his actions on a case by case basis and weigh it against the good that could be done.

I also advanced an argument from authority--that the vast majority of moral codes acknowledged by humans throughout history hold that it is possible to be evil without deserving to die on this earth. And any that did, would probably not be thought of as [Good]. (And, although the code of the Khan came close, it appeared to acknowledge a small amount of low intensity evil that didn't merit death on the first offense. It is also quite dubious whether it is actually [Good].) While the authority of any particular code may be doubted and might not be appropriate to discuss on these boards, surely the combined voice of all humanity through all the ages and of every god they thought spoke on ethics means something.

I also made several arguments relating to the individual(s) who would have to do the killing.

1. That killing all evil people would be likely to have a negative moral effect on the individuals doing the killing.

2. That allowing individuals to do so would

First, this is wrong, because it relies on false premises: you might prefer that all human D&D societies enjoy the same distribution of alignments among their populations, but, unfortunately, your preference does not make it so.

Nonsense. The premise is that human societies' alignments will never reach the point of "Always Good" or "Always neutral." 10-20% of the population is quite sufficient to render irradication a non-option. (So it works whether the society is 60% good, 30% neutral and 10% evil, 20% good, 60% neutral, and 20% evil, or 50% evil, 40% neutral, and 10% good). If you wish to defend the idea that any human society could ever possibly be even be as universally free of evil as the Western world is of illiteracy, you need some argument for it. (Every single fact of human history points in the other direction).

The unworkability of eliminating all evil is especially unworkable because, unlike an extermination program against a race which can be accomplished once and for all, the anti-evil pogrom would have to be ongoing in order to root evil out of both the new generations and those of the old generation who have fallen into evil since the last mass-killing. As I said, a society can--and many societies have--endured massive losses on a one-time basis. No society can sustain such losses on a continuing basis.

And the idea that, just because killing them would be the right thing to do doesn't mean it will happen is absurd as an ethical defense of anything. As Kant pointed out, ethics have to be universal. Anything else is ultimately unworkable.

 

[baradtgnome]

I advanced several arguments.
.......
Anything else is ultimately unworkable.

Very excellent and organized position. And I suspect that in most campaigns that have a problem with detect evil, you are dead on why. However I have to disagree that anything else is unworkable (sorry, I know I took that statement mostly out of context)

I don't think that a society or ruler would never abuse the power to detect and purge, our own real history shows too many tales of that. Even if it ends in warping the definition of good (and ultimately becoming evil as I think you suggested) and destroying itself. Same could be said of evil, chaos, or law if you rotate your game around those axis. A society, government or ruler does not necessarily behave rationally and in their best interests.

In my campaign I didn't want Paladins to 'know' the alignment of those they were dealing with, instead they need to learn the alignments by those they deal with through their actions and react to their demonstrated behavior. (which I believe you also desired)

On the other hand it is perfectly clear that your view applied consistantly by a competant DM is functional and rational. I just don't agree that there is only a single rational approach to the detect evil 'problem'. To me it was not really a problem, rather a question of flavor. I won't debate all the points with you - you have obviously so many points in the debate skill that I would lose.

All this from some asking how the spell works...

 

[Brian Chalian]

Please do show me in the rules where it says that. It does not seem to be in my copy of the PHB.

It's first mentioned in the beginning of chapter six.

"In the temple of Pelor [NG] is an ancient tome.... [that handles background checks on new employees. Upon kissing the book,] Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power..." Wow, and I thought the old, "Don't call us, we'll call you" was harsh.

It's also mentioned in the DMG. If an evil (1st level) guy who cheats on his taxes picks up a +1 holy sword, he dies with no saving throw. If his rotten bully of a son walks over and picks it up, he dies too. That's the way D&D physics work.

I can imagine, centuries in the future, at a Faerunian science convention:

"We have discovered, that when a sentient creature inflicts suffering on another being, the pineal gland releases E-cells. These cells flow through the bloodstream until they are removed by the liver. On their own they are mostly harmless. When they come in contact with radiation from the Upper planes, however, they form a lethal poison that kills the host. Curiously, only sentient being produce E-cells. Perhaps it is due to their highly developed brains. We're seeking a 1,000,000 gp grant to examine the phenomena further."

 

[ciaran00]

Paladins in 2e had detect evil intent, which was cool because they could tell if a devil was lying, for example... but no alignment nonsense...

ciaran

 

[WayneLigon]

Intertwined in that argument was an argument based on the necessity of order: Traditionally, societies have recognized that killing everyone they recognized as evil would not be right. ... I also advanced an argument from authority--that the vast majority of moral codes acknowledged by humans throughout history hold that it is possible to be evil without deserving to die on this earth. ....

However, all the moral codes we've ever come up with don't have a means for detecting if someone is, in fact, Evil. We have to use observable fact, counting on such things as reasonable doubt, the 'reasonable man' idea, witnesses, etc to construct a legal case. And we still get it wrong from time to time, even when it appears to be an 'open and shut' case.

On the other hand, it certainly isn't 'good' to just off-handedly kill that person. He has no chance for redemption, no chance to change his course in life, etc. One of the chief tenets of 'good' is 'mercy'.

Thus, he 'bears watching'. Let's imagine a trial where the magistrate has a priest or (better) a paladin do the Detect Evil thing as part of establishing a case. If someone did in fact detect as Evil, then it would certainly look bad for them but it doesn't prove they did a particular dead. All the priest can report is 'Sir, this man has a heart as black as the Abyss itself'

Now, how does a society deal with a person who is actually detected as being Evil? Surely he will find it difficult to get work once this gets out. He may be spat upon, etc, depending on the attitude of the society.

 

[jessemock]

). That argument went like this: Killing all evil people would do more harm to society than it would provide in benefits. That's not a reductio ad absurdum. It's straightforward application of the idea behind "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Actually, yes, it's exactly the same thing as an ethical reductio ad absurdum: doing "more harm to society than it would provide in benefits" is the ethical absurdity that prevents us from killing everyone who is evil.

It is not straightforward, because it is argued indirectly, which is all that a reductio is. Straightforward would have been to begin from an initial premise, not its converse. In order to show that a society must not kill all of its evil-doers, you looked at the consequences of what would happen if it did.

From a natural law perspective, I think it could be framed as saying that the universe is crafted in such a manner as to reward good and that evil bears natural punishments. Since killing all evil people would appear to naturally preclude any functional society, that would

That would what?

I don't know where you meant to go with this, but 'would appear' doesn't mean "does" and if your premise doesn't cover all possible societies, then, well, it doesn't.

Traditionally, societies have recognized that killing everyone they recognized as evil would not be right.

Wrong. Traditionally, societies that have practiced capital punsihment quite clearly believe that killing everyone that they recognised as evil would be right. It is perhaps true that they recognised that, practically, they can't accomplish this task, though I would argue that this is more a matter of an acknowledgement of the fact that some evil people get away with their crimes, than that they believed they would kill off too much of their citizenry.

I can't think of a single instance in all of history when a society pardoned a guy of his justly deserved death sentence, because a certain quota of righteous executions had already been met. Can you?

the vast majority of moral codes acknowledged by humans throughout history hold that it is possible to be evil without deserving to die on this earth.

Really? Could you give me a statistical breakdown of that one? Or, tell you what, all you have to do is give me a number: just tell me how many moral codes there have actually been in history (even better: human or otherwise!). Yeah; you go ahead and provide me with a farily credible list of every moral code that has ever existed, and I won't even argue the point: I'll just assume that you've examined each and every one of them at enough depth to assess their views on capital punishment. Do me a favour, though: start with New Guinea.

10-20% of the population is quite sufficient to render irradication a non-option.

If by this you mean "eradication by radiation," you may be right. If you mean, instead, "mass execution," you're wrong: it's entirely possible for a society to survive the death of 10-20% of its population. Furthermore, if all evil or even most evils can be traced infallibly to its or their source--evil people--well, yeah, it's perfectly reasonable to expect a society to go ahead and off them.

But this accepts the point that even 10% of a population is necessarily evil. And that's bologna.

If you wish to defend the idea that any human society could ever possibly be even be as universally free of evil as the Western world is of illiteracy, you need some argument for it. (Every single fact of human history points in the other direction).

First, I wouldn't make this comparison, because the Western world is not universally literate (given how much of an issue illiteracy is just in the States, what are you even talking about?). Second, I live in a fantasy world, ok? I don't need to justify the functioning of a magic spell in my make-believe society with the moral facts of the real world. Nor is it necessary for me to do so, even if I want to adhere like the craziest of pedants to the core rules of the Dungeons and Dragons role-playing game.

The unworkability of eliminating all evil is especially unworkable because, unlike an extermination program against a race which can be accomplished once and for all, the anti-evil pogrom would have to be ongoing in order to root evil out of both the new generations and those of the old generation who have fallen into evil since the last mass-killing.

Only if I decide by fiat that a certain percentage of the new generation is born evil, and, even if I do this (and I won't), I can quite infallibly eliminate them, too. As for those of the old generation, well, they wouldn't necessarily go evil, unless we assume that a certain portion of the population must be evil and that they've changed teams in order to fill this role. What a circle! Of logic!

No society can sustain such losses on a continuing basis.

Sure they can. They can increase their birth rate.

And the idea that, just because killing them would be the right thing to do doesn't mean it will happen is absurd as an ethical defense of anything. As Kant pointed out, ethics have to be universal. Anything else is ultimately unworkable.

Actually, Kant pointed out that ethics are not universal, that they cannot ever be so, and that we should, all the same, pretend that they are.

I don't know what "an ethical defense of anything" is, so I can't speak as to its absurdity level, but the point I made was that ethical beliefs don't necessarily lead to practical consequences. It was the practical consequences of the belief that all evil persons should be killed that you were complaining about.