Quote from: Blackhand;607578This happened two sessions ago.

So a paladin of St. Cuthbert enters the Moathouse dungeon.  He's with the party, but the first evil he detects is Zert, a hireling from Hommlett.

Yes, Zert is Chaotic Evil.  I don't tell the paladin that, just that he "pings" as evil.

The player says something imperious to Zert, I'm not sure what it was now.  It required some sort of response from him, I think it was the party trying to use Zert as a form of ablative armor by making him go first.  

When Zert shrugs his shoulders, puts down the coins he had scrounged into the party's dungeon cart, the paladin player says "Great job Zert.  Keep making good decisions."

I'm not sure I followed this: The Paladin extorted money from poor Zert because Zert was evil?

Quote from: Thalaba;607604I'm not sure I followed this: The Paladin extorted money from poor Zert because Zert was evil?

I think the Paladin was giving Zert positive reinforcement by treating him as an equal.

I don't much care for alignment and no matter what D&D I'm running, I always default to the D&D RC version of detect evil (which addresses threats in general, and does not mention alignment).

Quote from: Thalaba;607604I'm not sure I followed this: The Paladin extorted money from poor Zert because Zert was evil?

Sounds like classic Christianity to me.  

Seriously though, sounds more like Zert was holding out on the party by snagging stuff, and the Paladin got him to toss his loot into the communal cart to be split later.

Quote from: Bill;607599Ok, I found the 1E spell description online.


Detect Evil (Divination) Reversible  
Level: 1     Components: V, S, M    Range: 12"     Casting Time: 1 round    Duration: 1 turn + ½ turn/level     Saving Throw: None    Area of Effect: 1" path  
Explanation/Description: This is a spell which discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the case of the reverse spell, from any creature or object. For example, evil alignment or an evilly cursed object will radiate evil, but a hidden trop or an unintelligent viper will not. The duration of a Detect Evil (or Detect Good) spell is 1 turn + ½ turn (5 rounds, or 5 minutes) per level of the cleric. Thus a cleric of 1st level of experience can cast a spell with a 1½ turn duration, at 2nd level a 2 turn duration, 2½ at 3rd, etc. The spell has a path of detection 1" wide in the direction in which the cleric is facing. It requires the use of the cleric's holy (or unholy) symbol as its material component, with the cleric holding it before him or her.  



What am I missing? It seems to be pretty basic.

Uh, that's from the PHB, not the DMG.

Quote from: CRKrueger;607611Sounds like classic Christianity to me.  

Seriously though, sounds more like Zert was holding out on the party by snagging stuff, and the Paladin got him to toss his loot into the communal cart to be split later.

That's what it was...loose change and Chaotic Evil...you know.

Quote from: The Butcher;607610I don't much care for alignment and no matter what D&D I'm running, I always default to the D&D RC version of detect evil (which addresses threats in general, and does not mention alignment).

I stopped using alignment a long time ago. It pops up rarely with demons and angels and stuff like that, but I generally ignore it.

I feel actions define alignment, not the 'CN' on the sheet.

I have a hard time believing in an evil person who sees themselves as evil. I tend to prefer, at least for sentient humanoids, complex believable motivations, even if they clearly are evil outside of that creature's self-absorbed rational. Of course, "evil" here doesn't necessarily correspond to our culture's protestant baseline standards of morality.

The only "true evil" I go with are demons and otherdimensional creatures of that sort. Although, even then I prefer the Lovecraftian (their motivations are simply incomprehensible).

I just find EVIL-evil too cartoony.

Quote from: Bill;607613I stopped using alignment a long time ago. It pops up rarely with demons and angels and stuff like that, but I generally ignore it.

I feel actions define alignment, not the 'CN' on the sheet.

Ditching alignment ditches a lot of mechanical aspects of the game.  One has to throw out an assload of spells, magic items and conventions.

More trouble than it's worth, and if players know the game and expect to be able to perform certain actions it might get a little testy.

However, if you're not playing D&D it's not as much as issue.

Quote from: Blackhand;607624Ditching alignment ditches a lot of mechanical aspects of the game.  One has to throw out an assload of spells, magic items and conventions.

More trouble than it's worth, and if players know the game and expect to be able to perform certain actions it might get a little testy.

However, if you're not playing D&D it's not as much as issue.

I have run a ton of dnd campaigns with 1E/2E/3E/3.5E/Pathfinder, and ignoring alignment has never been an issue.

Quote from: Blackhand;607612Uh, that's from the PHB, not the DMG.

My lack of observation skills.

I don't have the book handy; I am at work.

Can you just paraphrase the dmg entry that supposedly makes detect evil useful in some way?

Quote from: Bill;607605I think the Paladin was giving Zert positive reinforcement by treating him as an equal.

Ah, that makes more sense. Then the Paladin, it seems, does believe that Evil is redeemable. He may be in for a surprise if the GM doesn't believe it.

I think most "villains" should be gray, but there also should be some things that are just plain evil.

Quote from: Bill;607631My lack of observation skills.

I don't have the book handy; I am at work.

Can you just paraphrase the dmg entry that supposedly makes detect evil useful in some way?

It's tiny enough.  I don't think they'll ban me or sue me for posting the paragraph in it's entirety, verbatim.

Spell Explanations, p. 41

Detect Evil:  Basically, the degree of evil (faint, moderate, strong, overwhelming) and it's general nature (expectant, malignant, gloating, etc.) can be noted.  If the evil is overwhelming, the general bent (lawful, neutral, chaotic) has a 10% chance per level of the clereic of being detectable.

Based on the description given, I judged Zert to be faintly evil, and expectant (meaning he might commit some faint evil). His description says he can go either way on the party (accompany or murder), and wants to get rich.

This doesn't make the spell more or less useful, just shows you how to adjudicate the spell.

It doesn't put a target over a evil beings' head with the psychic impulse to kill the person / creature out of hand.  It's not a free excuse for a lawful good character to commit what amounts to murder, just to make sure that they understand what they are dealing with.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

I think it depends alot on the setting and genre. In some, black-and-white objective evil works best, but in others, shades of grey make for a more interesting game.

I've run both kinds of games, and my preference is for the morally grey areas (because I think that's more interesting) moreso than the objective morality, but I can see room for the other.

For example, I once ran a pure evil campaign using the Book of Vile Darkness as inspiration; the players made completely irredeemably evil characters who were all members of the Cult of Orcus. It was a very entertaining game.

On the side issue of alignment, paladins, and Detect Evil: I don't use alignment as behavior or objective morality. I use it as, you know, *alignment*. Which side have you sworn allegiance to? For this reason, I stick to the older two-alignment system, but it doesn't really matter if I have 15 alignments with unique names; it would work the same.

For Detect Evil, I use the original spell description: it detects evil thought,  intent, or enchantment. Demons, undead and evil high priests show up as evil no matter what, but other living beings have to actually be planning to kill or maim. There are clearly evil actions, the way I run the game, and planning to do them will show up as "evil" to a paladin, but there's no "objective evil" in the sense of a person being evil regardless of their actions.

There's a mechanical aspect to alignment in terms of weapons or artifacts that are also aligned and which harm those not of its alignment. Those things can sit there and be evil, all by their lonesome, but that's because they were enchanted with evil intent. The evil in them is really the echo of someone else's evil.