TheRPGSite

Let us rehash this old chestnut.

How do you run Detect Evil in your campaign? Does it only detect innate evil? Can it ever be mistaken? Is it used as a justification for slapping some sod in the head?
Are people on the ball about having a spell cast on them, and consider it an invasion of privacy?

I never liked the idea that a pretty low level spell could divine someone's nature, and potentially short circuit a mystery. The Ravenloft setting just threw up their hands and said 'It don't work! Stop that!" Even so, if it does work, is someone justified in killing someone because a magic spell caused a red buzzer to sound off over their heads? Or merely imprisoning them because they're generically "evil"? Does any kind of due process enter the picture? What's to stop a cleric from saying that they detected evil in order to get at someone they don't like?

In looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

Detect Evil is a relic mechanic from High Fantasy settings inspired by Tolkein. Though I suspect that Tolkein himself would have had a problem with the ability to "Detect Evil" being so trivial to use.

I generally hold that the whole Alignment mechanic is a mistake and would ignore it if I ever ran D&D, along with associated spell effects.

5e has taken a step in the right direction with that implementation of Detect Evil IMO. I'd have it be the ability to detect association with a give Plane- the supernatural servants of your Patron Deity's enemies will show up to the spell, as will anyone granted spells by an enemy power (Warlock or Cleric/Paladin of rival god). This is the only way that makes sense to me- and the name "Detect Evil" becomes an in-charater reference rather than an OOC description of effect.

Quote from: Tantavalist on April 06, 2021, 07:52:38 PMI generally hold that the whole Alignment mechanic is a mistake and would ignore it if I ever ran D&D, along with associated spell effects.

This^

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PMIn looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

Also this^

I don't even bring up the idea of alignment in my games and let anyone do whatever. And either sort of wishy-washy all alignment-specific spells away, or replace them with "deals with supernatural evil only". Not just detection, but Protection from Evil/Good, etc. All that stuff deals only with "supernatural evil/good", as in monsters and outsiders and stuff, like fiends, celestials, vampires, etc.

I'm mixed on this, particularly as the Protection vs and Magic Circle spells have no alignment component at all. Magic Circle only targets a specific type of creature: celestials, fey, fiends, undead, or elementals. Protection from Evil and Good gives you benefits against aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. I just find that incredibly irritating.

Perhaps changing 'Detect Evil' to 'Detect Taint' (which lets you detect supernatural corruption and evil a la L5R) might be more appropriate.

They're justified, due process is a spook of modernity and why are you using it, and detecting evil or zone of truth on the cleric.

Quote from: Tantavalist on April 06, 2021, 07:52:38 PM
Detect Evil is a relic mechanic from High Fantasy settings inspired by Tolkein. Though I suspect that Tolkein himself would have had a problem with the ability to "Detect Evil" being so trivial to use.

Detect evil is far more Andersonian than Tolkienesque. Medieval morality, including absolute good and evil, grace, salvation, and all the uncomfortable consequences. Read The Mermaid's Children sometime, if you're interested in getting into a very alien mindset. Or the more direct inspirations of D&D, like The Broken Sword or Three Hearts and Three Lions.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 06, 2021, 08:12:47 PM

Quote from: Tantavalist on April 06, 2021, 07:52:38 PMI generally hold that the whole Alignment mechanic is a mistake and would ignore it if I ever ran D&D, along with associated spell effects.

This^

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PMIn looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

Also this^

Put me down for the opposite of This, so I guess ↓This

The current game I'm running is an Eberron game.  Eberron is a very morally flexible setting, with distant gods and explicitly relaxed alignment restrictions, and explicitly the 4E paradigm of divine or warlock imbuement (namely, that just because you got divine or fiendish powers doesn't mean that you haven't changed your mind and outlook).

And it doesn't mean a lot.  In Karrnath, there is a strong tradition of necromancy.  Necromancy is Evil, so a lot of people there are Evil.  They don't have more or less of a crime rate than other similar nations; it just means that certain kind of magic (like the kind used by the state church of their neighboring nation of Thrane) works really well to set things on fire there.

I was upfront with my players that Good and Evil are extant cosmic forces, and that using certain kinds of magic or taking certain kinds of actions will absolutely align your soul to one side or the other.  But since Eberron is explicitly a all-souls-go-to-purgatory-then-the-out-of-game-Great-Beyond afterlife setting, there's no real advantage in trying to powerlevel your Good stat.

But some people do, specifically so that people will make assumptions about them based on divinations, and some other people just shrug and invest in the several available methods to foil said detections.

Quote from: Shasarak on April 06, 2021, 10:32:09 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 06, 2021, 08:12:47 PM

Quote from: Tantavalist on April 06, 2021, 07:52:38 PMI generally hold that the whole Alignment mechanic is a mistake and would ignore it if I ever ran D&D, along with associated spell effects.

This^

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PMIn looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

Also this^

Put me down for the opposite of This, so I guess ↓This

NO, ↑That! :P

I'd say that the big issue with Detect Evil as a spell/ability is that in practice its real function, in game terms, is to detect danger -- i.e. it's a way for players to find out if an NPC/creature with whom they're interacting poses a risk if you turn your back on them. It's in the extremely natural and subtle jump to the conclusion that "Evil" means "dangerous" where the interesting ambiguities lie, or that "not Evil" means "not dangerous".

The idea that being Evil-aligned -- which, for non-supernatural sapient beings, I'll define briefly as, "willing, and habitually prone, to personally and actively hurt other sapient beings for a purely selfish benefit without feeling any serious remorse" -- is necessarily a danger to specific PCs in specific contexts is, of course, not a given. One of my favourite red herrings in fantasy murder mysteries is to make sure that the murderer is not the NPC who Detects as Evil, although that NPC may well play a vital role in the mystery in another way.

Another ambiguity I'd include would be to rule that even a Good or Neutral NPC, if seriously thinking about taking an action that would change his alignment (for even Good people can seriously consider doing appalling things in exigent circumstances), can temporarily Detect as Evil if scanned right at that moment. This is another way that PCs becoming over-reliant on the spell can trick themselves. Alternately, a character can be a thoroughly malicious a-hole who leaves a trail of wrecked lives behind him without ever actually being violent or dangerous to the average PC: again, Evil, but not a threat, or even necessarily a criminal.

Certainly one of the ways I would play any serious, conscientious social or religious scheme of Good is that its fundamental desire is to redeem or prevent Evil in ordinary people, not just stamp it out wherever found, so only particularly stifling or self-righteous theocracies would treat merely detecting as Evil to be a crime in itself if no actual lawbreaking actions can be proven to go with it.

Detects supernatural evil. That's how 5e does it, and 1e too (it's not Know Alignment).

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PM
Let us rehash this old chestnut.

How do you run Detect Evil in your campaign? Does it only detect innate evil? Can it ever be mistaken? Is it used as a justification for slapping some sod in the head?
Are people on the ball about having a spell cast on them, and consider it an invasion of privacy?

I never liked the idea that a pretty low level spell could divine someone's nature, and potentially short circuit a mystery. The Ravenloft setting just threw up their hands and said 'It don't work! Stop that!" Even so, if it does work, is someone justified in killing someone because a magic spell caused a red buzzer to sound off over their heads? Or merely imprisoning them because they're generically "evil"? Does any kind of due process enter the picture? What's to stop a cleric from saying that they detected evil in order to get at someone they don't like?

In looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

If detect evil works without fail (no false positives) then nobody that wasn't evil would view it as an invasion of privacy. That would likely be hard for us to really accept because it would create stark lines and eliminate a lot of gray areas. It's actually far more fantastic than slinging fireballs, because it would fundamentally change the way people interact with one another (and even see themselves if they couldn't deny that what they were doing was evil).

I have it detect what is inarguably evil only; not someone's alignment; but like undead devils demons beholders etc. I generally always do, when not fiddling with FR and I have not in a great while, play on a psuedo historical earth, so there are no naturally occuring orcs and goblins, such are always men twisted by magic and thus always evil, I generally have it so nothing native to the prime material is defined as evil even if its alignment gives it evil tendencies, natives of the prime can do good or evil but are not either inherently despite alignment. In some cases I'll have it detect chaos instead of evil, like if cast on a non traditionally evil creature like a mermaid or centaur (natives of fairy). So in that way it functions to tell you the target is either from another plane, unquestionably tainted by evil, or mundane.

It's pure setting element to me.  I change it around with each setting.  I've run it as straight alignment check.  I've run it in most of the variations discussed by others, including "detects supernatural evil" and "detects active evil".  I've also run it where it "detects evil miasma", which in play is a lot like "detects supernatural evil" + any more mundane, sustained accumulation of evil acts. 

I've also run D&D campaigns where I ditched alignments and detect evil/good entirely. 

I prefer the rules be structured such that I can do any of those things with minimal house rules.  While I'm wishing, I'd also like a free bag of gold. :D

I used the "Detect Evil" spell in one of my 2ed AD&D games as, rather than anything more complicated, a "My Deity says Smite!" check. The goddess of the harvest would show a food thief or a Ratkin as evil, but ignore a Harpy, for instance.

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 07, 2021, 06:19:45 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PM
Let us rehash this old chestnut.

How do you run Detect Evil in your campaign? Does it only detect innate evil? Can it ever be mistaken? Is it used as a justification for slapping some sod in the head?
Are people on the ball about having a spell cast on them, and consider it an invasion of privacy?

I never liked the idea that a pretty low level spell could divine someone's nature, and potentially short circuit a mystery. The Ravenloft setting just threw up their hands and said 'It don't work! Stop that!" Even so, if it does work, is someone justified in killing someone because a magic spell caused a red buzzer to sound off over their heads? Or merely imprisoning them because they're generically "evil"? Does any kind of due process enter the picture? What's to stop a cleric from saying that they detected evil in order to get at someone they don't like?

In looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

If detect evil works without fail (no false positives) then nobody that wasn't evil would view it as an invasion of privacy.

i would. It's still thoughtcrime, and that's even without considering there's no universal definition of good and evil, so even if good and evil are objectively detectable, you can still challenge the definition being used.

Agree about the degree of social impact.

Quote from: Pat on April 07, 2021, 10:30:17 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 07, 2021, 06:19:45 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PM
Let us rehash this old chestnut.

How do you run Detect Evil in your campaign? Does it only detect innate evil? Can it ever be mistaken? Is it used as a justification for slapping some sod in the head?
Are people on the ball about having a spell cast on them, and consider it an invasion of privacy?

I never liked the idea that a pretty low level spell could divine someone's nature, and potentially short circuit a mystery. The Ravenloft setting just threw up their hands and said 'It don't work! Stop that!" Even so, if it does work, is someone justified in killing someone because a magic spell caused a red buzzer to sound off over their heads? Or merely imprisoning them because they're generically "evil"? Does any kind of due process enter the picture? What's to stop a cleric from saying that they detected evil in order to get at someone they don't like?

In looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

If detect evil works without fail (no false positives) then nobody that wasn't evil would view it as an invasion of privacy.

i would. It's still thoughtcrime, and that's even without considering there's no universal definition of good and evil, so even if good and evil are objectively detectable, you can still challenge the definition being used.

Agree about the degree of social impact.

If detect evil works without fail, it creates the universal definition.

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 06:06:38 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 07, 2021, 10:30:17 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 07, 2021, 06:19:45 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PM
Let us rehash this old chestnut.

How do you run Detect Evil in your campaign? Does it only detect innate evil? Can it ever be mistaken? Is it used as a justification for slapping some sod in the head?
Are people on the ball about having a spell cast on them, and consider it an invasion of privacy?

I never liked the idea that a pretty low level spell could divine someone's nature, and potentially short circuit a mystery. The Ravenloft setting just threw up their hands and said 'It don't work! Stop that!" Even so, if it does work, is someone justified in killing someone because a magic spell caused a red buzzer to sound off over their heads? Or merely imprisoning them because they're generically "evil"? Does any kind of due process enter the picture? What's to stop a cleric from saying that they detected evil in order to get at someone they don't like?

In looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

If detect evil works without fail (no false positives) then nobody that wasn't evil would view it as an invasion of privacy.

i would. It's still thoughtcrime, and that's even without considering there's no universal definition of good and evil, so even if good and evil are objectively detectable, you can still challenge the definition being used.

Agree about the degree of social impact.

If detect evil works without fail, it creates the universal definition.

Only in the most trite and literal sense. The morality of that definition will always remain up for debate.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PM
How do you run Detect Evil in your campaign? Does it only detect innate evil? Can it ever be mistaken? Is it used as a justification for slapping some sod in the head?

It is pretty clear in OD&D.

QuoteDetect Evil: A spell to detect evil thought or intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object. Note that poison, for example, is neither good nor evil. Duration: 2 turns. Range: 6".

Basically for 20 minutes you get a "spidey sense" 60 feet in radius to alert you do any creature that might be dangerous to you or a dangerous magic item.

In my Majestic Fantasy RPG Rules I make this clearer.

Detect Evil
(Divine, 1st Level) Range: 120 feet; Duration: 1 hour
(Arcane, 2nd Level) Range: 60 feet; Duration: 20 minutes
The caster detects the following dangers for the duration of the spell: hostile sentient beings, hostile monsters, and enchantments/auras that cause damage or some type of harm. It does not detect traps, poisons, or other mundane dangers.

In later editions it gets cluttered up with alignment system stuff and authors taking the title of the spell too literally.

I run it as written in AD&D 2e. It is quite strict there. It can only detect innate evil such as demons and undead necromantic magic tapping into the Negative Material Plane. But it cannot detect it in human/oids unless they are a) evil priests, b) of high level, c) in good standing, and d) in the middle of an evil act. So 9th lvl Snake Cult Gnoll Priestess in full ceremonial regalia having a beer in a bar (or giving candy to street urchins) will not likely work, though you can presume all you like.

I readjust the spell in 5e accordingly because I prefer the mystery. I actually adjust quite a few 5e spells because I don't like their lenient (or sometimes stringent) WotC wording. In other games where players play strong powers, like In Nomine, I am OK with such conceits and willingly prepare around them. But for D&D I don't need the overhead.

I also retain in-setting hostility at having unknown and undeclared magic casted at oneself. It along with other conceits (like no one is Zero lvl, assault NPCs at your peril) helps tone down the "Pew pew! Imma wizard, you peons!" at my table.

The thing to keep in mind about the OD&D version is that unlike later editions utility spells have long durations making them much more useful especially with limited spell slots to memorize with.

Later editions and authors failed to get this aspect of the original editions.

Compared to other choices there is little to no reasons to memorize AD&D 2e version of Detect Evil. It so situational it would come up once in a blue moon.

By AD&D detect evil could be baffled by various means. Same I believe in BX. It was certainly concealable by 2e.
Some things that could counter this were psionics. Certain spells. And in particular some magic items.

In BX Detect evil detected evil intentions and evil objects. But did not reveal anything else. And nots that "Chaotic is not always evil" and that the DM should discuss the spell with the players so everyone is on the same page. By that reading then the spell could say detect someone really mad about something that is not normally so dark in thought. And totally miss someone evil who just happened to not at the time have any evil intentions. A lawful Evil person happy with the current state of things might get a pass.
Similarly Protection from Evil protected the caster from anyone of an alignment other than their own. Pretty sure one of the NPCs in Keep on the Borderlands had an amulet of protection from alignment detection. But do not have it handy to check so could be wrong.

AD&D Detect Evil on the other hand detected evil alignment. It though worked within a certain field of view so someone standing outside the cone would not be detected. But the DM section says slightly otherwise.
Protection from Evil was weird again as it protected from non-evil summoned animals, elementals, and golems. But also put a penalty on evil aligned creatures attacks on them.

On the flip side the 2nd level spell Know Alignment could be reversed to prevent any alignment detection. There are supposed to be items that protect but a glance through did not spot any right off.

The psionics section has a power that allows the user to give off a false alignment I believe.

Quote from: Pat on April 08, 2021, 09:49:01 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 06:06:38 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 07, 2021, 10:30:17 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 07, 2021, 06:19:45 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PM
Let us rehash this old chestnut.

How do you run Detect Evil in your campaign? Does it only detect innate evil? Can it ever be mistaken? Is it used as a justification for slapping some sod in the head?
Are people on the ball about having a spell cast on them, and consider it an invasion of privacy?

I never liked the idea that a pretty low level spell could divine someone's nature, and potentially short circuit a mystery. The Ravenloft setting just threw up their hands and said 'It don't work! Stop that!" Even so, if it does work, is someone justified in killing someone because a magic spell caused a red buzzer to sound off over their heads? Or merely imprisoning them because they're generically "evil"? Does any kind of due process enter the picture? What's to stop a cleric from saying that they detected evil in order to get at someone they don't like?

In looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

If detect evil works without fail (no false positives) then nobody that wasn't evil would view it as an invasion of privacy.

i would. It's still thoughtcrime, and that's even without considering there's no universal definition of good and evil, so even if good and evil are objectively detectable, you can still challenge the definition being used.

Agree about the degree of social impact.

If detect evil works without fail, it creates the universal definition.

Only in the most trite and literal sense. The morality of that definition will always remain up for debate.

Not to someone within that world. To do so would be to apply real world workings to a fantasy world. That's why I said it would be a world radically different from ours more than one in which people shit out fireballs.

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 05:14:06 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 08, 2021, 09:49:01 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 06:06:38 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 07, 2021, 10:30:17 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 07, 2021, 06:19:45 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PM
Let us rehash this old chestnut.

How do you run Detect Evil in your campaign? Does it only detect innate evil? Can it ever be mistaken? Is it used as a justification for slapping some sod in the head?
Are people on the ball about having a spell cast on them, and consider it an invasion of privacy?

I never liked the idea that a pretty low level spell could divine someone's nature, and potentially short circuit a mystery. The Ravenloft setting just threw up their hands and said 'It don't work! Stop that!" Even so, if it does work, is someone justified in killing someone because a magic spell caused a red buzzer to sound off over their heads? Or merely imprisoning them because they're generically "evil"? Does any kind of due process enter the picture? What's to stop a cleric from saying that they detected evil in order to get at someone they don't like?

In looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

If detect evil works without fail (no false positives) then nobody that wasn't evil would view it as an invasion of privacy.

i would. It's still thoughtcrime, and that's even without considering there's no universal definition of good and evil, so even if good and evil are objectively detectable, you can still challenge the definition being used.

Agree about the degree of social impact.

If detect evil works without fail, it creates the universal definition.

Only in the most trite and literal sense. The morality of that definition will always remain up for debate.

Not to someone within that world. To do so would be to apply real world workings to a fantasy world. That's why I said it would be a world radically different from ours more than one in which people shit out fireballs.

Completely disagree. You'd still have iconoclasts and heretics who disagree with the justice and correctness of the metaphysical laws. The existence of a natural law of morality doesn't magically mean everyone is going to agree with it.

Though the degree to which there would be disagreement would be heavily based on culture. If the culture was stifling and uniform, which seems fairly likely given how often that's cropped up in human history based on purely subjective assessments, the amount and degree of dissent would probably be fairly minor. If they somehow passed through their own Enlightenment, it would be far more significant. Though it's a lot more likely the world would be hidebound and intolerant to a degree that makes the medieval Catholic church seem like libertines.

Quote from: Pat on April 08, 2021, 06:47:06 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 05:14:06 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 08, 2021, 09:49:01 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 06:06:38 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 07, 2021, 10:30:17 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 07, 2021, 06:19:45 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PM
Let us rehash this old chestnut.

How do you run Detect Evil in your campaign? Does it only detect innate evil? Can it ever be mistaken? Is it used as a justification for slapping some sod in the head?
Are people on the ball about having a spell cast on them, and consider it an invasion of privacy?

I never liked the idea that a pretty low level spell could divine someone's nature, and potentially short circuit a mystery. The Ravenloft setting just threw up their hands and said 'It don't work! Stop that!" Even so, if it does work, is someone justified in killing someone because a magic spell caused a red buzzer to sound off over their heads? Or merely imprisoning them because they're generically "evil"? Does any kind of due process enter the picture? What's to stop a cleric from saying that they detected evil in order to get at someone they don't like?

In looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

If detect evil works without fail (no false positives) then nobody that wasn't evil would view it as an invasion of privacy.

i would. It's still thoughtcrime, and that's even without considering there's no universal definition of good and evil, so even if good and evil are objectively detectable, you can still challenge the definition being used.

Agree about the degree of social impact.

If detect evil works without fail, it creates the universal definition.

Only in the most trite and literal sense. The morality of that definition will always remain up for debate.

Not to someone within that world. To do so would be to apply real world workings to a fantasy world. That's why I said it would be a world radically different from ours more than one in which people shit out fireballs.

Completely disagree. You'd still have iconoclasts and heretics who disagree with the justice and correctness of the metaphysical laws. The existence of a natural law of morality doesn't magically mean everyone is going to agree with it.

Though the degree to which there would be disagreement would be heavily based on culture. If the culture was stifling and uniform, which seems fairly likely given how often that's cropped up in human history based on purely subjective assessments, the amount and degree of dissent would probably be fairly minor. If they somehow passed through their own Enlightenment, it would be far more significant. Though it's a lot more likely the world would be hidebound and intolerant to a degree that makes the medieval Catholic church seem like libertines.

If you're familiar with Torg, then the idea here is akin to the "world laws" each cosm (alt reality) has that dictate how various things simply do not work the same way that they do in Core Earth (the not-quite-the-real-world-but close-enough base setting).

And you're right that having a natural law of morality doesn't mean that everyone will agree with it...but it does mean that those that oppose it are objectively evil within the world laws of that world.

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 07:09:21 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 08, 2021, 06:47:06 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 05:14:06 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 08, 2021, 09:49:01 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 06:06:38 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 07, 2021, 10:30:17 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 07, 2021, 06:19:45 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PM
Let us rehash this old chestnut.

How do you run Detect Evil in your campaign? Does it only detect innate evil? Can it ever be mistaken? Is it used as a justification for slapping some sod in the head?
Are people on the ball about having a spell cast on them, and consider it an invasion of privacy?

I never liked the idea that a pretty low level spell could divine someone's nature, and potentially short circuit a mystery. The Ravenloft setting just threw up their hands and said 'It don't work! Stop that!" Even so, if it does work, is someone justified in killing someone because a magic spell caused a red buzzer to sound off over their heads? Or merely imprisoning them because they're generically "evil"? Does any kind of due process enter the picture? What's to stop a cleric from saying that they detected evil in order to get at someone they don't like?

In looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

If detect evil works without fail (no false positives) then nobody that wasn't evil would view it as an invasion of privacy.

i would. It's still thoughtcrime, and that's even without considering there's no universal definition of good and evil, so even if good and evil are objectively detectable, you can still challenge the definition being used.

Agree about the degree of social impact.

If detect evil works without fail, it creates the universal definition.

Only in the most trite and literal sense. The morality of that definition will always remain up for debate.

Not to someone within that world. To do so would be to apply real world workings to a fantasy world. That's why I said it would be a world radically different from ours more than one in which people shit out fireballs.

Completely disagree. You'd still have iconoclasts and heretics who disagree with the justice and correctness of the metaphysical laws. The existence of a natural law of morality doesn't magically mean everyone is going to agree with it.

Though the degree to which there would be disagreement would be heavily based on culture. If the culture was stifling and uniform, which seems fairly likely given how often that's cropped up in human history based on purely subjective assessments, the amount and degree of dissent would probably be fairly minor. If they somehow passed through their own Enlightenment, it would be far more significant. Though it's a lot more likely the world would be hidebound and intolerant to a degree that makes the medieval Catholic church seem like libertines.

If you're familiar with Torg, then the idea here is akin to the "world laws" each cosm (alt reality) has that dictate how various things simply do not work the same way that they do in Core Earth (the not-quite-the-real-world-but close-enough base setting).

And you can disagree with the morality of world laws. Gravity's the classic world law, but it's a little too abstract for this purpose. But all kinds of people think aging is terribly unfair and unjust, while others try to rationalize it, and others just try to deal with it. Same would be true if certain things pinged evil and others pinged good.

Quote from: Pat on April 08, 2021, 07:11:50 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 07:09:21 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 08, 2021, 06:47:06 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 05:14:06 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 08, 2021, 09:49:01 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 06:06:38 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 07, 2021, 10:30:17 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 07, 2021, 06:19:45 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PM
Let us rehash this old chestnut.

How do you run Detect Evil in your campaign? Does it only detect innate evil? Can it ever be mistaken? Is it used as a justification for slapping some sod in the head?
Are people on the ball about having a spell cast on them, and consider it an invasion of privacy?

I never liked the idea that a pretty low level spell could divine someone's nature, and potentially short circuit a mystery. The Ravenloft setting just threw up their hands and said 'It don't work! Stop that!" Even so, if it does work, is someone justified in killing someone because a magic spell caused a red buzzer to sound off over their heads? Or merely imprisoning them because they're generically "evil"? Does any kind of due process enter the picture? What's to stop a cleric from saying that they detected evil in order to get at someone they don't like?

In looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

If detect evil works without fail (no false positives) then nobody that wasn't evil would view it as an invasion of privacy.

i would. It's still thoughtcrime, and that's even without considering there's no universal definition of good and evil, so even if good and evil are objectively detectable, you can still challenge the definition being used.

Agree about the degree of social impact.

If detect evil works without fail, it creates the universal definition.

Only in the most trite and literal sense. The morality of that definition will always remain up for debate.

Not to someone within that world. To do so would be to apply real world workings to a fantasy world. That's why I said it would be a world radically different from ours more than one in which people shit out fireballs.

Completely disagree. You'd still have iconoclasts and heretics who disagree with the justice and correctness of the metaphysical laws. The existence of a natural law of morality doesn't magically mean everyone is going to agree with it.

Though the degree to which there would be disagreement would be heavily based on culture. If the culture was stifling and uniform, which seems fairly likely given how often that's cropped up in human history based on purely subjective assessments, the amount and degree of dissent would probably be fairly minor. If they somehow passed through their own Enlightenment, it would be far more significant. Though it's a lot more likely the world would be hidebound and intolerant to a degree that makes the medieval Catholic church seem like libertines.

If you're familiar with Torg, then the idea here is akin to the "world laws" each cosm (alt reality) has that dictate how various things simply do not work the same way that they do in Core Earth (the not-quite-the-real-world-but close-enough base setting).

And you can disagree with the morality of world laws. Gravity's the classic world law, but it's a little too abstract for this purpose. But all kinds of people think aging is terribly unfair and unjust, while others try to rationalize it, and others just try to deal with it. Same would be true if certain things pinged evil and others pinged good.

There's a pretty big difference in disagreeing with the morality of a world law that defines morality. One that disagrees with the morality of aging still ages and one that disagrees with the morality of gravity is still at risk of falling. Is one that disagrees with the morality of a world law of absolute good/evil still bound by it? In the fantasy world of absolute good/evil, I say they are. The Sith is still evil even if he claims the Jedi are the bad guys because that's the world law of the setting.

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 07:17:40 PM
There's a pretty big difference in disagreeing with the morality of a world law that defines morality. One that disagrees with the morality of aging still ages and one that disagrees with the morality of gravity is still at risk of falling. Is one that disagrees with the morality of a world law of absolute good/evil still bound by it? In the fantasy world of absolute good/evil, I say they are. The Sith is still evil even if he claims the Jedi are the bad guys because that's the world law of the setting.

The point is that excepting the actual effects (vulnerability to Smite, various other magics, etc.), most people don't care.  Alignment is not visible, and if Grigor the wizard does suspicious and eldritch things in in his tower, but comes down to share his magic and participate in all the local village festivals, then most villagers will neither know nor care whether he's staining his soul with Evil magic, polishing it up with Good magic, or that he's actually an alchemist LARPing as a wizard and has no magic whatsoever.

And there are a lot of fantasy worlds where the world law is explicitly skewed off of what we'd think of traditional morality, like the 2E Forgotten Realms setting and its Wall of the Faithless.  That can make morality a matter of pressing interest, but it cannot convert the will of Ao, powerful as he might be, into actual virtue.

On what HappyDaze and Pat are discussing, I could divide this into three basic cases:

(1) There is absolute good and evil, and everyone believes in it. The evil creatures are like "I'm evil and I know it" while the good creatures know they are good. It's simplistic, and that's the point. The world law is that evil beings know they are evil.

(2) There are differing cultural attitudes about good and evil, with various shades of grey, and no alignment system.

(3) There is absolute good and evil, but there is cultural complexity and some cultures are verifiably evil by the alignment system but still think of themselves as good.

I'm not sure I see the point of #3. If there is moral complexity to the world and its cultures, then why have a simplistic absolute alignment system?


(As an aside, less quoting would make things more readable, I think. More than two nested quotes is getting excessive, in my opinion.)

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 07:17:40 PM
There's a pretty big difference in disagreeing with the morality of a world law that defines morality. One that disagrees with the morality of aging still ages and one that disagrees with the morality of gravity is still at risk of falling. Is one that disagrees with the morality of a world law of absolute good/evil still bound by it? In the fantasy world of absolute good/evil, I say they are. The Sith is still evil even if he claims the Jedi are the bad guys because that's the world law of the setting.

That's what you seem to be missing -- yes, if good and evil are objectively defined in a world, you're bound by it. If you ping as evil, then smite evil will burn. You'll show up on thoughtcrimeI mean detect evil maps. You might be ignored by certain creatures, subject to certain afflictions, and so on.

That doesn't mean people have to agree that the classification is just. That it exists doesn't mean it's right.

Quote from: jhkim on April 08, 2021, 07:46:02 PM
(As an aside, less quoting would make things more readable, I think. More than two nested quotes is getting excessive, in my opinion.)

(As an aside, (and not in this this post,) you multi-quote too much. Doing it less would make things more readable. I know this with the absolute certainty of detect evil forum software-induced habits.)

Edit: Don't take this too seriously. I was amused by the timing of our last two posts, so I'm poking fun.

Quote from: jhkim on April 08, 2021, 07:46:02 PM(3) There is absolute good and evil, but there is cultural complexity and some cultures are verifiably evil by the alignment system but still think of themselves as good.

I'm not sure I see the point of #3. If there is moral complexity to the world and its cultures, then why have a simplistic absolute alignment system?

I mentioned it earlier, but Poul Anderson's The Mermaid's Children is classic because of this very reason. It's a world where good and evil are absolute -- and follow the laws of the medieval Church. For a modern reader, it creates a massive degree of dissonance, because that way of thinking is so far from ours. Those who are steeped in Catholic doctrine will have less of a shock, but it's still very distant from any modern belief system. And that's purely metatextual; there are no easy, modern-analogue characters in the story who say what the reader is thinking. But the main struggle of the book -- in the character development sense, not in the plot -- is a conflict between that world view, and a view that's outside that worldview. It's not an easy or a happy book, but I think it's an excellent illustration of the concept. Anderson deals with this theme in other fantasy novels, but this is the most concentrated dose.

Quote from: Pat on April 08, 2021, 07:47:37 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 07:17:40 PM
There's a pretty big difference in disagreeing with the morality of a world law that defines morality. One that disagrees with the morality of aging still ages and one that disagrees with the morality of gravity is still at risk of falling. Is one that disagrees with the morality of a world law of absolute good/evil still bound by it? In the fantasy world of absolute good/evil, I say they are. The Sith is still evil even if he claims the Jedi are the bad guys because that's the world law of the setting.

That's what you seem to be missing -- yes, if good and evil are objectively defined in a world, you're bound by it. If you ping as evil, then smite evil will burn. You'll show up on thoughtcrimeI mean detect evil maps. You might be ignored by certain creatures, subject to certain afflictions, and so on.

That doesn't mean people have to agree that the classification is just. That it exists doesn't mean it's right.

I would say that in that world, it does make it right (and those in that world that don't agree are therefore wrong). Like I said before though, it's a very fantastical take that requires divergence from how good and evil are (hopefully) viewed IRL.

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 08:22:36 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 08, 2021, 07:47:37 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 08, 2021, 07:17:40 PM
There's a pretty big difference in disagreeing with the morality of a world law that defines morality. One that disagrees with the morality of aging still ages and one that disagrees with the morality of gravity is still at risk of falling. Is one that disagrees with the morality of a world law of absolute good/evil still bound by it? In the fantasy world of absolute good/evil, I say they are. The Sith is still evil even if he claims the Jedi are the bad guys because that's the world law of the setting.

That's what you seem to be missing -- yes, if good and evil are objectively defined in a world, you're bound by it. If you ping as evil, then smite evil will burn. You'll show up on thoughtcrimeI mean detect evil maps. You might be ignored by certain creatures, subject to certain afflictions, and so on.

That doesn't mean people have to agree that the classification is just. That it exists doesn't mean it's right.

I would say that in that world, it does make it right (and those in that world that don't agree are therefore wrong). Like I said before though, it's a very fantastical take that requires divergence from how good and evil are (hopefully) viewed IRL.

No, in that world, the only thing that's objectively wrong would be denying that objective good and evil exist. Disputing that they're really good and evil is purely subjective, and thus there is room for a wide range of opinions on the subject.

This might be a language issue, circling back to my trite and literal comment. In that world, a specific set of properties called good on the one hand, and evil on the other, exist and can be independently verified. They're real in that sense, and they're good and evil in that sense. But that's the most trivial use of those words, because the words good and evil, as we use them in conversation, are not defined by the characteristics of a particular world. Using our world's English words of "good" and "evil" to describe the objective characteristics of another world doesn't change how we use the terms. To us, as we talk about that theoretical world, they're subjective terms, used to describe how we interpret different behaviors, and even things and events. The variation on how they're used is effectively infinite, if somewhat circumscribed by limits of human understanding, and tends to orbit certain great attractors defined by everything from biology to culture. You seem to be using good and evil in a very narrow sense as technical terms or terms of art, but that doesn't and can't override what other people mean when they say good and evil in other contexts.

tl;dr just saying they're good and evil doesn't make it so

Quote from: Pat on April 08, 2021, 07:50:10 PM
Edit: Don't take this too seriously. I was amused by the timing of our last two posts, so I'm poking fun.

What have you done with the real Pat?  ???

Flip this around, is it cool for people to use Detect Good to hunt and kill the objectively good, y/n/I've already blocked you

D&D Alignments were supposed to be "the faction you're *aligned* with" - just as in Anderson & Moorcock Law v Chaos. Everyone knew which faction they supported. This is clear in the earliest stuff, but gets progressively muddied as Gygax also wanted to use it as a way to punish badly played Paladins - "You're doing LG wrong!"

In the CSIO, the Clanute (Senate) has factions that are explicitly LG, LE, CN etc - they act like political parties, Whigs v Tories. Everyone thinks their own Alignment is best.

IRL of course in a system like this either no one will call themselves Evil, or Evil will mean something completely different than IRL. For the Evil-Aligned, Evil is a good thing.

The simple thing is to limit it only to detection of supernatural beings or manifestations that can be said to be "objectively" evil - might be undead or Lovecraftian mythos entities or demons or whatever.

If your world has a well-defined pantheon then each god could grant a version of "detect evil" that works against "enemy" gods. The first sentence is really just a simplified version of this.

The conversation is interesting, but instead of pining down exact parameters for Detect Evil (or honestly, almost any Detect spell a PC uses), I let the definitions be squishy so that it can provide a needed nudge to get the action going if the party gets bogged down.

Quote from: Marchand on April 09, 2021, 03:27:32 AM
If your world has a well-defined pantheon then each god could grant a version of "detect evil" that works against "enemy" gods. The first sentence is really just a simplified version of this.

That could almost be a parody of sadly common real-life thinking where it would simply be called detect them (i.e., anyone that is no one of us).

Age of Sigmar (and its Soulbound RPG) somewhat has this where the gods of Order, Chaos, Death, and Destruction form the primary divide among the factions. That doesn't make Order good--it includes a crazy-ass cult of murderous she-elves and bands of god-hating, soul-stealing sea elves right alongside the righteous hold crusaders of the setting.

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 09, 2021, 05:52:31 AM
That could almost be a parody of sadly common real-life thinking where it would simply be called detect them (i.e., anyone that is no one of us).

See my descriptions of the spell in BX and AD&D.
By 2e it was back to intent rather than a flat detection.

In 3e its back to detecting Evil, but now if the evil is higher level than the caster theres a chance it actually stuns the caster. Level of detection got stronger the longer concentrated on detecting.

4e has no detect evil at all seems.

5e Basic also has no Detect evil. Standard game though Detect Evil is the weirdest yet. It does not detect evil at all? It detects Abberrants, Fiends, etc. WTF???

Quote from: Omega on April 09, 2021, 06:22:07 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 09, 2021, 05:52:31 AM
That could almost be a parody of sadly common real-life thinking where it would simply be called detect them (i.e., anyone that is no one of us).

See my descriptions of the spell in BX and AD&D.
By 2e it was back to intent rather than a flat detection.

In 3e its back to detecting Evil, but now if the evil is higher level than the caster theres a chance it actually stuns the caster. Level of detection got stronger the longer concentrated on detecting.

Oh wow. There's an idea. Casting Detect Evil, or Know Alignment having a chance to backfire if the target is very powerful, or is drawing attention of whatever Evil Powers.
Hmmm...

It seems to me the best solution is to remove Detect Evil and possibly Know Alignment, and replace them with:

Detect Danger: This spell allows the caster to sense the intent to do him and his companions harm. The motivations are not revealed, and it only applies to creatures (so a trap or a natural hazard wouldn't trigger it).

Detect Quintessence: Quintessence is the side effect of supernatural creatures on their environment. This spell allows the caster to detect or trace such planar effects, whether good or evil. Outsiders can be easily detected by this spell, and even after they have left the area their signature 'lingers' for one day per hit die.

And for fun, here's an idea for a spell that involves alignment:

Tasha's Conundrum: The caster poses a ethical and moral question to the target which causes it to stop in its tracks to evaluate the problem.  While affected, the target cannot make any action other than to withdraw or move away, although they are not helpless and can actively avoid attacks, make saving throws, etc. The base duration is 1d4 rounds, +1 for every 'step' that the target's alignment differs from the caster (example: a lawful good caster targets a neutral evil enemy with this spell. If they fail the save, they are stuck considering the conundrum for 1d4+3 rounds). The target must be able to hear and understand the caster, and it does not work on creatures with Intelligence 2 or less.

Quote from: Omega on April 09, 2021, 06:22:07 AM
5e Basic also has no Detect evil. Standard game though Detect Evil is the weirdest yet. It does not detect evil at all? It detects Abberrants, Fiends, etc. WTF???

I'm not familiar with 5e, but that's one of the variations on detect evil that's always made a lot of sense, from a game standpoint. In D&D, the Outer Planes are the alignment planes, each inhabited by, infused by, and iconic exemplars of the 8/9/17 alignments. The Abyss isn't just another place, which happens to be where some crazy bad creatures live. No, it's the place that embodies the Chaotic Evil alignment, and demons are the flag-bearers of CE.

More than that, the creatures of the Outer Planes, and the planes themselves, are divine. Some are literally angels, and others are creatures adapted from various mythologies, but in both implied and explicit ways, they're spiritual rather than fully material beings. Demons don't just happen to be CE, they are made of the literal manifestation of CE. They, along with the other Lower Planes and their natives, detect as evil not because of their actions, but because of their essence.

The reason this is useful design decision is because it removes the onus of judging individual actions from the DM and players -- demons are evil by their very nature. That means it's a definitional, rather than a legalistic, determination. Which has real advantages in the real world, because everyone has their own moral framework, which means the moral assumptions of different gamers are always going to conflict. Are orcs naturally evil, and is killing their babies justified? What makes a paladin fall? Those are sloppy questions, and different people have different answers. But by defining evil as metaphysical, it removes those quandaries. Evil means you're from the Lower Planes, or you get your power from there (like a cultist of Orcus). That's easy and straightforward to determine, almost mechanical.

Quote from: S'mon on April 09, 2021, 02:42:14 AM
D&D Alignments were supposed to be "the faction you're *aligned* with" - just as in Anderson & Moorcock Law v Chaos. Everyone knew which faction they supported. This is clear in the earliest stuff, but gets progressively muddied as Gygax also wanted to use it as a way to punish badly played Paladins - "You're doing LG wrong!"

In the CSIO, the Clanute (Senate) has factions that are explicitly LG, LE, CN etc - they act like political parties, Whigs v Tories. Everyone thinks their own Alignment is best.

IRL of course in a system like this either no one will call themselves Evil, or Evil will mean something completely different than IRL. For the Evil-Aligned, Evil is a good thing.

Were they? It's true that factions have become common in wargames, and the term itself implies sides, but Chainmail doesn't have alignment. You could build an army with elves, orcs, dragons, and pixies, if you want.

OD&D talks about taking a "stance", says players must "select a role", and has numerous creatures that appear in two or even all three alignment charts. In other places, the booklets talk about monsters being lured into service "if they are of the same basic alignment", that the "alignment and aims" of the ego sword and its wielder must be in harmony, and there's always the infamous helm of chaos (law) aka alignment change. These all suggest (without every coming out and explicitly saying it) that alignment is part of your nature/behavior and not just a political alliance. Moorcock and Anderson also treated it this way. Elric might have made a choice, but the Lords of Law were inflexible bastions of rigidity and intolerance. I think the idea of alignment was muddled from the start.

But I do like treating alignment as a side, rather than a moral proscription. It's also perfectly compatible with good and evil being defined by a connection to the Outer Planes.

All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF "objective" morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game. You can claim "objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because 'fantasy'—CHECKMATE!" all you want, but that still doesn't give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF "evil" is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don't have the tools to properly assess it.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 10:13:03 AM
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF "objective" morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game. You can claim "objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because 'fantasy'—CHECKMATE!" all you want, but that still doesn't give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF "evil" is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don't have the tools to properly assess it.

Considering there are numerous real world philosophies that do make decent of arguable claims as to be able to define and assess objective morality it is rather strange to assert that a fantasy world where the author (or GM) has perfect cosmological control can not simulate this.

You can give a flat disagreement about something but it doesn't make the opinion valid. This is as true for scientific fact as it is for logic, as it is for philosophy, as it is for morality.

Also to consider that as for the spell Detect Evil the morality of Good or Evil isn't really necessary. Only how the creator of the spell defined Evil. Equally Evil alignment doesn't equal dangerous or even illegal. The mercenary captain that guards the town maybe Lawful Evil etc.

Thank you jhkim for asking to stop the Fresnel Lens Discussion we were developing there.  ;D It was fun until it was unreadable to aging eyes.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 09, 2021, 08:08:22 AM
Oh wow. There's an idea. Casting Detect Evil, or Know Alignment having a chance to backfire if the target is very powerful, or is drawing attention of whatever Evil Powers.
Hmmm...

I always thought that was part of the fun of the spell.  ;) Prepare and cast it during a mystery, maybe even humoring provincial peasants and their gossip, cool and anticipated. Having the spell work and spot the demonic in the mayor's goat or passing grandma... and have IT notice you back staring with horrified recognition, delicious setup! Gives the really wicked (or good, if Detect Good inverse) NPC a target to suss out in cat & mouse social and exploration games.

Quote from: Visitor Q on April 09, 2021, 12:19:45 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 10:13:03 AM
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF "objective" morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game. You can claim "objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because 'fantasy'—CHECKMATE!" all you want, but that still doesn't give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF "evil" is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don't have the tools to properly assess it.

Considering there are numerous real world philosophies that do make decent of arguable claims as to be able to define and assess objective morality it is rather strange to assert that a fantasy world where the author (or GM) has perfect cosmological control can not simulate this.

You can give a flat disagreement about something but it doesn't make the opinion valid. This is as true for scientific fact as it is for logic, as it is for philosophy, as it is for morality.

Also to consider that as for the spell Detect Evil the morality of Good or Evil isn't really necessary. Only how the creator of the spell defined Evil. Equally Evil alignment doesn't equal dangerous or even illegal. The mercenary captain that guards the town maybe Lawful Evil etc.

Considering that there are numerous real world philosophies that make decent claims to the contrary and there is still no consensus on such matters despite millennia of debate on the topic, that the objective of an RPG is to play a game, not to break down into protracted philosophical discussions about the nature of good and evil, and that an author with complete and total control over their story is in no way analogous to a GM who needs to share their world with their players as part of a shared group activity with random elements like dice or cards affecting the outcome of things, where they can't ever have 100% the same amount of control an actual author has (no matter how superficially similar those two might seem to be), that leads me back to my original point. We don't have the tools to properly assess WTF "objective" good and evil is. We don't even have an agreement about WTF "objective" morality even entails, even at an academic level, where the subject has been rehashed to death since time immemorial and is still debated to this day. Yet SOMEHOW we're supposed to portray it in a satisfactory way in a game as part of a shared group activity with plenty of people who might disagree about any of these subjects even mean?

Consider the conclusion to you post. Here you're claiming that the outcome of a Detect Evil spell is ultimately defined by the creator(caster?), which is an inherently subjective notion, and goes against the idea of objective morality. If objective morality is a thing and we can properly assess it in gameplay, then WTF does how a caster define evil matter? If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 01:01:57 PM
If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.

Pick one. Any one. The key point of an objective standard is that's objective, not that it represents some platonic ideal. Cue endless debates about whether the objective definition of evil is really the best definition evil, but that's a feature not a stopping point.

Greetings!

Yeah, in my campaigns, I have Detect Evil as working to determine a source of Supernatural Evil. So, evil creatures and beings from beyond the mortal world. That keeps the spell useful, while not destroying other kinds of scenarios and adventures and just being a pain in the ass, besides opening the door to endless, stupid arguments.

Beyond all that, there are many societies in my campaigns that routinely execute people they believe are evil all the time. Lots of criminals, rebels, scum, cultists, are ruthlessly tortured, and burned at the stake.

In many areas, though, such evil people can rest assured that as they die--they are not suffering in vain, for oftentimes their whole families are also arrested and charged, and their wealth, property, and other assets are seized by the government, and redistributed to those that are righteous and faithful.

So, it's a WIN-WIN for everyone involved! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Pat on April 09, 2021, 01:38:50 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 01:01:57 PM
If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.

Pick one. Any one. The key point of an objective standard is that's objective, not that it represents some platonic ideal. Cue endless debates about whether the objective definition of evil is really the best definition evil, but that's a feature not a stopping point.

But how do we manage this during play? Other than reducing alignment to factional alliances (which sorta transcends morality in terms of intent and behavior, and is more about which camp you side with), as some have suggested, there isn't an effective way to consistently present this in the game.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 02:00:57 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 09, 2021, 01:38:50 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 01:01:57 PM
If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.

Pick one. Any one. The key point of an objective standard is that's objective, not that it represents some platonic ideal. Cue endless debates about whether the objective definition of evil is really the best definition evil, but that's a feature not a stopping point.

But how do we manage this during play? Other than reducing alignment to factional alliances (which sorta transcends morality in terms of intent and behavior, and is more about which camp you side with), as some have suggested, there isn't an effective way to consistently present this in the game.

Sure there is. Pick a morality system, and run with it. It doesn't matter if the DM or players agree with it, just that it's treated consistently within the setting.

The reason a lot of internet debates about alignment become impassable morasses is because the people involved start arguing about their own personal definitions of good and evil. Which is at the core of everyone's identity, so naturally discussions become heated and nobody is willing to budge.

I find picking a morality system that's clearly at odds with modern belief systems works best. The cognitive dissonance between what players believe in own personal lives and the belief system in the game prevents them from conflating their own personal morality with the definitions of good and evil in the game.

Quote from: Pat on April 09, 2021, 02:20:24 PM
Sure there is. Pick a morality system, and run with it. It doesn't matter if the DM or players agree with it, just that it's treated consistently within the setting.

The reason a lot of internet debates about alignment become impassable morasses is because the people involved start arguing about their own personal definitions of good and evil. Which is at the core of everyone's identity, so naturally discussions become heated and nobody is willing to budge.

I find picking a morality system that's clearly at odds with modern belief systems works best. The cognitive dissonance between what players believe in own personal lives and the belief system in the game prevents them from conflating their own personal morality with the definitions of good and evil in the game.

These are some good things to say, like fuck, half the time it's down to people getting twisted because they can't cope with the unreality of the moral code. The unreality's the fucking fun part! Do an activism or a march or whatever if you just wanna embody your own morality somewhere.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 01:01:57 PM

Quote from: Visitor Q on April 09, 2021, 12:19:45 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 10:13:03 AM
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF "objective" morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game. You can claim "objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because 'fantasy'—CHECKMATE!" all you want, but that still doesn't give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF "evil" is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don't have the tools to properly assess it.

Considering there are numerous real world philosophies that do make decent of arguable claims as to be able to define and assess objective morality it is rather strange to assert that a fantasy world where the author (or GM) has perfect cosmological control can not simulate this.

You can give a flat disagreement about something but it doesn't make the opinion valid. This is as true for scientific fact as it is for logic, as it is for philosophy, as it is for morality.

Also to consider that as for the spell Detect Evil the morality of Good or Evil isn't really necessary. Only how the creator of the spell defined Evil. Equally Evil alignment doesn't equal dangerous or even illegal. The mercenary captain that guards the town maybe Lawful Evil etc.

Considering that there are numerous real world philosophies that make decent claims to the contrary and there is still no consensus on such matters despite millennia of debate on the topic, that the objective of an RPG is to play a game, not to break down into protracted philosophical discussions about the nature of good and evil, and that an author with complete and total control over their story is in no way analogous to a GM who needs to share their world with their players as part of a shared group activity with random elements like dice or cards affecting the outcome of things, where they can't ever have 100% the same amount of control an actual author has (no matter how superficially similar those two might seem to be), that leads me back to my original point. We don't have the tools to properly assess WTF "objective" good and evil is. We don't even have an agreement about WTF "objective" morality even entails, even at an academic level, where the subject has been rehashed to death since time immemorial and is still debated to this day. Yet SOMEHOW we're supposed to portray it in a satisfactory way in a game as part of a shared group activity with plenty of people who might disagree about any of these subjects even mean?

Consider the conclusion to you post. Here you're claiming that the outcome of a Detect Evil spell is ultimately defined by the creator(caster?), which is an inherently subjective notion, and goes against the idea of objective morality. If objective morality is a thing and we can properly assess it in gameplay, then WTF does how a caster define evil matter? If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.

There are people who think the world is flat. Not every opinion is valid. The fact there is debate academic or otherwise is irrelevant. Academics haven't worked out what a man or a woman is yet while the rest of the world moves on.

To the gaming point if a GM says in the game world then something is objectively evil then it is. A player can choose to play a character who doesn't believe that or can leave the game but it doesn't detract from the "reality" of the game world. At a certain point if all the consequences for being good or evil manifest up to and including literal divine judgement then discussions about "but was that really evil?" just become intellectual masturbation.

The second point about the intention of the creator of the spell (as in the original sorcerer who developed it) was a separate point about how to use the spell practically. It wasn't related to the A-level philosophy debate.

Quote from: Pat on April 09, 2021, 02:20:24 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 02:00:57 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 09, 2021, 01:38:50 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 01:01:57 PM
If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.

Pick one. Any one. The key point of an objective standard is that's objective, not that it represents some platonic ideal. Cue endless debates about whether the objective definition of evil is really the best definition evil, but that's a feature not a stopping point.

But how do we manage this during play? Other than reducing alignment to factional alliances (which sorta transcends morality in terms of intent and behavior, and is more about which camp you side with), as some have suggested, there isn't an effective way to consistently present this in the game.

Sure there is. Pick a morality system, and run with it. It doesn't matter if the DM or players agree with it, just that it's treated consistently within the setting.

The reason a lot of internet debates about alignment become impassable morasses is because the people involved start arguing about their own personal definitions of good and evil. Which is at the core of everyone's identity, so naturally discussions become heated and nobody is willing to budge.

I find picking a morality system that's clearly at odds with modern belief systems works best. The cognitive dissonance between what players believe in own personal lives and the belief system in the game prevents them from conflating their own personal morality with the definitions of good and evil in the game.

Even if we pick a made up morality system (something I've yet to see anyone here or during similar discussions provide a clear example of) people's opinions about what fits or doesn't fit that particular system may differ, as I've seen happen in actual play when using AD&D's alignment system with any degree of seriousness. Which is the reason D&D's alignment system remains an ongoing topic of discussion decades after the game's inception. It isn't just an issue of people's own personal definitions of good and evil getting in the way, but that in actual play people's (including the GM's) personal definitions of good and evil are the ONLY thing they have to fall back on to assess what is or isn't good or evil, unless we're treating alignment as a faction. In which case people's actual intent or behavior doesn't matter, only which side they take.

Quote from: Visitor Q on April 09, 2021, 02:38:52 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 01:01:57 PM

Quote from: Visitor Q on April 09, 2021, 12:19:45 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 10:13:03 AM
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF "objective" morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game. You can claim "objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because 'fantasy'—CHECKMATE!" all you want, but that still doesn't give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF "evil" is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don't have the tools to properly assess it.

Considering there are numerous real world philosophies that do make decent of arguable claims as to be able to define and assess objective morality it is rather strange to assert that a fantasy world where the author (or GM) has perfect cosmological control can not simulate this.

You can give a flat disagreement about something but it doesn't make the opinion valid. This is as true for scientific fact as it is for logic, as it is for philosophy, as it is for morality.

Also to consider that as for the spell Detect Evil the morality of Good or Evil isn't really necessary. Only how the creator of the spell defined Evil. Equally Evil alignment doesn't equal dangerous or even illegal. The mercenary captain that guards the town maybe Lawful Evil etc.

Considering that there are numerous real world philosophies that make decent claims to the contrary and there is still no consensus on such matters despite millennia of debate on the topic, that the objective of an RPG is to play a game, not to break down into protracted philosophical discussions about the nature of good and evil, and that an author with complete and total control over their story is in no way analogous to a GM who needs to share their world with their players as part of a shared group activity with random elements like dice or cards affecting the outcome of things, where they can't ever have 100% the same amount of control an actual author has (no matter how superficially similar those two might seem to be), that leads me back to my original point. We don't have the tools to properly assess WTF "objective" good and evil is. We don't even have an agreement about WTF "objective" morality even entails, even at an academic level, where the subject has been rehashed to death since time immemorial and is still debated to this day. Yet SOMEHOW we're supposed to portray it in a satisfactory way in a game as part of a shared group activity with plenty of people who might disagree about any of these subjects even mean?

Consider the conclusion to you post. Here you're claiming that the outcome of a Detect Evil spell is ultimately defined by the creator(caster?), which is an inherently subjective notion, and goes against the idea of objective morality. If objective morality is a thing and we can properly assess it in gameplay, then WTF does how a caster define evil matter? If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.

There are people who think the world is flat. Not every opinion is valid. The fact there is debate academic or otherwise is irrelevant. Academics haven't worked out what a man or a woman is yet while the rest of the world moves on.

To the gaming point if a GM says in the game world then something is objectively evil then it is. A player can choose to play a character who doesn't believe that or can leave the game but it doesn't detract from the "reality" of the game world. At a certain point if all the consequences for being good or evil manifest up to and including literal divine judgement then discussions about "but was that really evil?" just become intellectual masturbation.

The second point about the intention of the creator of the spell (as in the original sorcerer who developed it) was a separate point about how to use the spell practically. It wasn't related to the A-level philosophy debate.

There are people who think that they know the objective definition of morality. That doesn't mean that their definition is correct or sidestep the fact that there's no consensus on the subject, even to the point where I've yet to see a single person here arguing in favor of objective morality (fictional or otherwise) provide a clear example of it that can consistently be implemented during play other than "alignment is really about factions within the game world".

A GM may rule that whatever they say IS in fact "objective evil" (at least within the context of their world), but that doesn't change the fact that we're ultimately still going by the GM's whims on whatever they think qualifies as "evil" that day, which isn't a workable standard that players can effectively fall back on, since they can't know what the GM's whims are until after the fact, after they've already stepped on one of these morality landmines. And saying that the players can just up and leave if they don't like it doesn't tell me how to properly implement these "objective standards" during play. It just tells me that we can just push them and let the campaign fall apart if players don't like it. Which I can easily sidestep by simply not treating morality as some objective measure I have to waste time pushing onto players or trying to judge during play, and seems to me a more effective way to handle the game than pretending that we as humans can effectively declare what is or isn't objectively moral.

The point about the spell only highlights my point. If we have to come up with work arounds to implement these spells in practical terms during play, then clearly declaring objective morality to be real, even if only within the context of the game world, doesn't really solve anything. Since it provides no practical solutions to how to handle things during play other than "the GM's way or the highway". We still need some sort of guideline of how to use these spells in a practical sense during play, and declaring morality to be objective doesn't seem to be it. It's always some other proxy, such as "the spells work only vs supernatural good/evil", or "based on the caster's intent", or "alignment is just an in-game faction".

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 02:50:59 PM
Even if we pick a made up morality system (something I've yet to see anyone here or during similar discussions provide a clear example of) people's opinions about what fits or doesn't fit that particular system may differ, as I've seen happen in actual play when using AD&D's alignment system with any degree of seriousness.

People's opinions about a lot of things differ, that's why we have DMs. It's like many, many other aspects of the game where the players and DM, over time, develop a common understanding about what things work and what don't. And all kinds of moral systems have been referenced in this thread, from the medieval morality of The Mermaid's Children, to the almost equally unpleasant Law and Chaos in Moorcock's books, to the various ways it's been handled in D&D, to real world systems. There is a plenitude of options.

Quote from: Pat on April 09, 2021, 03:27:16 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 02:50:59 PM
Even if we pick a made up morality system (something I've yet to see anyone here or during similar discussions provide a clear example of) people's opinions about what fits or doesn't fit that particular system may differ, as I've seen happen in actual play when using AD&D's alignment system with any degree of seriousness.

People's opinions about a lot of things differ, that's why we have DMs. It's like many, many other aspects of the game where the players and DM, over time, develop a common understanding about what things work and what don't. And all kinds of moral systems have been referenced in this thread, from the medieval morality of The Mermaid's Children, to the almost equally unpleasant Law and Chaos in Moorcock's books, to the various ways it's been handled in D&D, to real world systems. There is a plenitude of options.

I already went into some of the pitfalls of relying on GM fiat in my last post. I'm not really familiar with The Mermaid's Children or Moorcock's books (other than stuff I've read in passing when Law/Chaos comes up in some of these discussions), but the various of ways it's been handled in D&D are precisely the reason why this subject keeps coming up so much over the years. They don't really work in a practical sense at all. Everyone has their own interpretation of WTF D&D alignments mean, and it has undergone lots of changes throughout different editions of the game precisely due to criticisms D&D's alignment system has endured.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 03:43:47 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 09, 2021, 03:27:16 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 02:50:59 PM
Even if we pick a made up morality system (something I've yet to see anyone here or during similar discussions provide a clear example of) people's opinions about what fits or doesn't fit that particular system may differ, as I've seen happen in actual play when using AD&D's alignment system with any degree of seriousness.

People's opinions about a lot of things differ, that's why we have DMs. It's like many, many other aspects of the game where the players and DM, over time, develop a common understanding about what things work and what don't. And all kinds of moral systems have been referenced in this thread, from the medieval morality of The Mermaid's Children, to the almost equally unpleasant Law and Chaos in Moorcock's books, to the various ways it's been handled in D&D, to real world systems. There is a plenitude of options.

I already went into some of the pitfalls of relying on GM fiat in my last post. I'm not really familiar with The Mermaid's Children or Moorcock's books (other than stuff I've read in passing when Law/Chaos comes up in some of these discussions), but the various of ways it's been handled in D&D are precisely the reason why this subject keeps coming up so much over the years. They don't really work in a practical sense at all. Everyone has their own interpretation of WTF D&D alignments mean, and it has undergone lots of changes throughout different editions of the game precisely due to criticisms D&D's alignment system has endured.

I agree the various editions of D&D haven't been great at that.

But the problem isn't DM fiat, it's that people keep trying to impose their own personal moral views. That's why I recommend creating a sharp break between modern real life and the fictional objective moral systems. And like many sticky social contract issues, it's not a bad idea to talk to your players about it. Communication problems should be solved with communication. Or just go with the Outer Planes quintessence and/or faction versions.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 10:13:03 AM
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF "objective" morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game.

This applies to objective reality as well. If you want a definitive statement of existence, you ain't gonna get it.

QuoteYou can claim "objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because 'fantasy'—CHECKMATE!" all you want, but that still doesn't give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF "evil" is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don't have the tools to properly assess it.

I imagine for 99.9%* of players, the standard alignment descriptions put forth in the rulebooks handle 99.9%* of the cases.

*Numbers pulled out of my ass.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 09, 2021, 05:58:53 PM

I imagine for 99.9%* of players, the standard alignment descriptions put forth in the rulebooks handle 99.9%* of the cases.

*Numbers pulled out of my ass.

God I wish but thanks to the meta-discussion around alignments all the real BIG THINK quandaries show up in games more often than they oughtta. Gotta make sure orc babies and starving kids stealing bread and trolley problems show up everywhere all the time so we can sort this alignment business out.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 09, 2021, 05:58:53 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 10:13:03 AM
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF "objective" morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game.

This applies to objective reality as well. If you want a definitive statement of existence, you ain't gonna get it.

QuoteYou can claim "objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because 'fantasy'—CHECKMATE!" all you want, but that still doesn't give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF "evil" is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don't have the tools to properly assess it.

I imagine for 99.9%* of players, the standard alignment descriptions put forth in the rulebooks handle 99.9%* of the cases.

*Numbers pulled out of my ass.

In my experience those numbers tend to fall apart the moment the LG paladin wants to kill the goblin babies* or fleeing orcs**, and the player feels justified (cuz "evil"), but I don't (cuz "complex notions of morality"). However, if we reduce "alignment" to just "cosmic forces/factions", such as "Light/Good/Law" (Angelic) or "Darkness/Evil/Chaos" (Demonic), then playing a morally questionable paladin out to vanquish all creatures of "Darkness"--by any means necessary--becomes a viable and completely black & white alternative, entirely within the purview of their faction.

*Something that's happened a few times over the years.
**happens all the time.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 06:20:13 PM
In my experience those numbers tend to fall apart the moment the LG paladin wants to kill the goblin babies*....

That's such a waste of a goblin baby. They work much better as armor.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 06:20:13 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 09, 2021, 05:58:53 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 10:13:03 AM
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF "objective" morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game.

This applies to objective reality as well. If you want a definitive statement of existence, you ain't gonna get it.

QuoteYou can claim "objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because 'fantasy'—CHECKMATE!" all you want, but that still doesn't give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF "evil" is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don't have the tools to properly assess it.

I imagine for 99.9%* of players, the standard alignment descriptions put forth in the rulebooks handle 99.9%* of the cases.

*Numbers pulled out of my ass.

In my experience those numbers tend to fall apart the moment the LG paladin wants to kill the goblin babies* or fleeing orcs**, and the player feels justified (cuz "evil"), but I don't (cuz "complex notions of morality"). However, if we reduce "alignment" to just "cosmic forces/factions", such as "Light/Good/Law" (Angelic) or "Darkness/Evil/Chaos" (Demonic), then playing a morally questionable paladin out to vanquish all creatures of "Darkness"--by any means necessary--becomes a viable and completely black & white alternative, entirely within the purview of their faction.

*Something that's happened a few times over the years.
**happens all the time.

Yes. That's the prototypical example of 'what really is "good"?' In my experience, really quick discussion between the DM and Paladin usually solves that problem.

"I would not snare even an orc with a falsehood." - Faramir, The Two Towers
Or Paladins are justified in killing "evil" babies and helpless foes because they've proven to take mercy and twist it to their advantage.

Either works, as long as the player and GM are on the same page, and the GM doesn't spring an alignment gotcha on the player.

What irks me is players who want all the powers of the Paladin, and none of the responsibilites. If someone wants to play a Paladin, they better be prepared to obey the tenents of their order. The whole point is that the Good Powers invest them with extra abilities because they have codes and morals in how they use them.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PM
Let us rehash this old chestnut.

How do you run Detect Evil in your campaign? Does it only detect innate evil? Can it ever be mistaken? Is it used as a justification for slapping some sod in the head?
Are people on the ball about having a spell cast on them, and consider it an invasion of privacy?

I never liked the idea that a pretty low level spell could divine someone's nature, and potentially short circuit a mystery. The Ravenloft setting just threw up their hands and said 'It don't work! Stop that!" Even so, if it does work, is someone justified in killing someone because a magic spell caused a red buzzer to sound off over their heads? Or merely imprisoning them because they're generically "evil"? Does any kind of due process enter the picture? What's to stop a cleric from saying that they detected evil in order to get at someone they don't like?

In looking up how 5th edition does it, I note the latest version only detects supernatural evil. That's a bit more my style.

Not in terms of D&D by my own system, this is how I use Detect Evil.

I start with the source of said evil, which can be 'vengeful thoughts/intents', ' degenerate/sinful thinking', possessed objects and lingering auras. Each of these is assigned a number based on how difficult it is to detect, that being 3/4/5/5 of 6.

From there, each of these things has a success threshold that, once met, will prompt the DM to inform the player 'direction', 'source', and 'cause', so the player can stop the attempt early if they just need to find a source.

As for how that threshold is met, my system uses a D6 dice pool system, and each 4 or 5 also counts as a success for the numbers below it.

Example: A PC has a pool of 5 dice between the two stats for the pool, and rolls a 2, 3, 3, 5, and a 6, with a 4 for the Exploding Dice on the 6.

That makes 5 successes at 3, 3 at 4, and 2 at 5. So, if there's someone in the area with some violent tendencies or form of degenerate thinking, this one roll would inform the PC of such and give them an idea of what direction they're in, but not the exact source or the cause of such thoughts.

Those thresholds can be increased however if there are a lot of people in the area, or if someone/thing is controlling the one giving off the evil presence.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 06:20:13 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 09, 2021, 05:58:53 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 10:13:03 AM
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF "objective" morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game.

This applies to objective reality as well. If you want a definitive statement of existence, you ain't gonna get it.

QuoteYou can claim "objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because 'fantasy'—CHECKMATE!" all you want, but that still doesn't give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF "evil" is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don't have the tools to properly assess it.

I imagine for 99.9%* of players, the standard alignment descriptions put forth in the rulebooks handle 99.9%* of the cases.

*Numbers pulled out of my ass.

In my experience those numbers tend to fall apart the moment the LG paladin wants to kill the goblin babies* or fleeing orcs**, and the player feels justified (cuz "evil"), but I don't (cuz "complex notions of morality"). However, if we reduce "alignment" to just "cosmic forces/factions", such as "Light/Good/Law" (Angelic) or "Darkness/Evil/Chaos" (Demonic), then playing a morally questionable paladin out to vanquish all creatures of "Darkness"--by any means necessary--becomes a viable and completely black & white alternative, entirely within the purview of their faction.

*Something that's happened a few times over the years.
**happens all the time.

**Those Orcs were not fleeing, that was a tactical withdrawal.

I just looked through the copies of D&D that I have on hand, and none of them describe Detect Evil as detecting evil alignment. Only one of the games even has Evil as an alignment (Blueholme).

Old School Essentials:
"Objects enchanted for evil purposes or living beings with evil intentions are caused to magically glow."

Blueholme Journeymanne Rules:
"The caster can sense the presence of evil objects, as well as evil intentions or thoughts of any creature within range of the spell. The spell also gives some idea of the degree of evil, and possibly whether the source is lawful or chaotic."

ODND:
"A spell to detect evil thought or intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object. Note that poison, for example, is neither good nor evil. Duration: 2 turns. Range: 6"."


Does noone read spell descriptions anymore? Or is everyone playing different games than myself? All this hand-wringing over such a straightforward spell that actually has very little to do with alignment is silly.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on April 10, 2021, 12:51:59 PM
I just looked through the copies of D&D that I have on hand, and none of them describe Detect Evil as detecting evil alignment. Only one of the games even has Evil as an alignment (Blueholme).

Old School Essentials:
"Objects enchanted for evil purposes or living beings with evil intentions are caused to magically glow."

Blueholme Journeymanne Rules:
"The caster can sense the presence of evil objects, as well as evil intentions or thoughts of any creature within range of the spell. The spell also gives some idea of the degree of evil, and possibly whether the source is lawful or chaotic."

ODND:
"A spell to detect evil thought or intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object. Note that poison, for example, is neither good nor evil. Duration: 2 turns. Range: 6"."


Does noone read spell descriptions anymore? Or is everyone playing different games than myself? All this hand-wringing over such a straightforward spell that actually has very little to do with alignment is silly.

I'm certainly not playing the same games as you.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on April 10, 2021, 12:51:59 PM
I just looked through the copies of D&D that I have on hand, and none of them describe Detect Evil as detecting evil alignment. Only one of the games even has Evil as an alignment (Blueholme).

Old School Essentials:
"Objects enchanted for evil purposes or living beings with evil intentions are caused to magically glow."

Blueholme Journeymanne Rules:
"The caster can sense the presence of evil objects, as well as evil intentions or thoughts of any creature within range of the spell. The spell also gives some idea of the degree of evil, and possibly whether the source is lawful or chaotic."

ODND:
"A spell to detect evil thought or intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object. Note that poison, for example, is neither good nor evil. Duration: 2 turns. Range: 6"."


Does noone read spell descriptions anymore? Or is everyone playing different games than myself? All this hand-wringing over such a straightforward spell that actually has very little to do with alignment is silly.

In 3e (aka. the Greatest & Last True Edition of D&D), detect evil detects any type of "evil" creature or item, although the strength of the "evil aura" varies depending on whether that creature is simply "evil", an outsider or a cleric of any evil god. 2e (the 2nd Greatest Edition of D&D) does mention intent, though, but it also specifies alignment, and its unclear whether intent is just needed to also detect alignment. "This spell discovers emanations of evil...from any creature, object or area. Character's alignment, however, is revealed only under unusual circumstances: characters who are strongly aligned, who do not stray from their faith, and who are of at least 9th level might radiate good or evil if intent upon appropriate actions" (italics included in the original text). So I'm guessing it detects evil align, but only reveals alignment if they're dedicated evil and powerful (later on in the description it specifies a 10%/level chance of detecting specific alignment).

Quote from: Pat on April 09, 2021, 06:46:53 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 06:20:13 PM
In my experience those numbers tend to fall apart the moment the LG paladin wants to kill the goblin babies*....

That's such a waste of a goblin baby. They work much better as armor.

Goblin Baby of Protection +2, +5 vs Goblin Moms.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 03:12:34 PM

Quote from: Visitor Q on April 09, 2021, 02:38:52 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 01:01:57 PM

Quote from: Visitor Q on April 09, 2021, 12:19:45 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 10:13:03 AM
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF "objective" morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game. You can claim "objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because 'fantasy'—CHECKMATE!" all you want, but that still doesn't give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF "evil" is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don't have the tools to properly assess it.

Considering there are numerous real world philosophies that do make decent of arguable claims as to be able to define and assess objective morality it is rather strange to assert that a fantasy world where the author (or GM) has perfect cosmological control can not simulate this.

You can give a flat disagreement about something but it doesn't make the opinion valid. This is as true for scientific fact as it is for logic, as it is for philosophy, as it is for morality.

Also to consider that as for the spell Detect Evil the morality of Good or Evil isn't really necessary. Only how the creator of the spell defined Evil. Equally Evil alignment doesn't equal dangerous or even illegal. The mercenary captain that guards the town maybe Lawful Evil etc.

Considering that there are numerous real world philosophies that make decent claims to the contrary and there is still no consensus on such matters despite millennia of debate on the topic, that the objective of an RPG is to play a game, not to break down into protracted philosophical discussions about the nature of good and evil, and that an author with complete and total control over their story is in no way analogous to a GM who needs to share their world with their players as part of a shared group activity with random elements like dice or cards affecting the outcome of things, where they can't ever have 100% the same amount of control an actual author has (no matter how superficially similar those two might seem to be), that leads me back to my original point. We don't have the tools to properly assess WTF "objective" good and evil is. We don't even have an agreement about WTF "objective" morality even entails, even at an academic level, where the subject has been rehashed to death since time immemorial and is still debated to this day. Yet SOMEHOW we're supposed to portray it in a satisfactory way in a game as part of a shared group activity with plenty of people who might disagree about any of these subjects even mean?

Consider the conclusion to you post. Here you're claiming that the outcome of a Detect Evil spell is ultimately defined by the creator(caster?), which is an inherently subjective notion, and goes against the idea of objective morality. If objective morality is a thing and we can properly assess it in gameplay, then WTF does how a caster define evil matter? If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.

There are people who think the world is flat. Not every opinion is valid. The fact there is debate academic or otherwise is irrelevant. Academics haven't worked out what a man or a woman is yet while the rest of the world moves on.

To the gaming point if a GM says in the game world then something is objectively evil then it is. A player can choose to play a character who doesn't believe that or can leave the game but it doesn't detract from the "reality" of the game world. At a certain point if all the consequences for being good or evil manifest up to and including literal divine judgement then discussions about "but was that really evil?" just become intellectual masturbation.

The second point about the intention of the creator of the spell (as in the original sorcerer who developed it) was a separate point about how to use the spell practically. It wasn't related to the A-level philosophy debate.

There are people who think that they know the objective definition of morality. That doesn't mean that their definition is correct or sidestep the fact that there's no consensus on the subject, even to the point where I've yet to see a single person here arguing in favor of objective morality (fictional or otherwise) provide a clear example of it that can consistently be implemented during play other than "alignment is really about factions within the game world".

A GM may rule that whatever they say IS in fact "objective evil" (at least within the context of their world), but that doesn't change the fact that we're ultimately still going by the GM's whims on whatever they think qualifies as "evil" that day, which isn't a workable standard that players can effectively fall back on, since they can't know what the GM's whims are until after the fact, after they've already stepped on one of these morality landmines. And saying that the players can just up and leave if they don't like it doesn't tell me how to properly implement these "objective standards" during play. It just tells me that we can just push them and let the campaign fall apart if players don't like it. Which I can easily sidestep by simply not treating morality as some objective measure I have to waste time pushing onto players or trying to judge during play, and seems to me a more effective way to handle the game than pretending that we as humans can effectively declare what is or isn't objectively moral.

The point about the spell only highlights my point. If we have to come up with work arounds to implement these spells in practical terms during play, then clearly declaring objective morality to be real, even if only within the context of the game world, doesn't really solve anything. Since it provides no practical solutions to how to handle things during play other than "the GM's way or the highway". We still need some sort of guideline of how to use these spells in a practical sense during play, and declaring morality to be objective doesn't seem to be it. It's always some other proxy, such as "the spells work only vs supernatural good/evil", or "based on the caster's intent", or "alignment is just an in-game faction".

A GMs "whims" assumes it would be arbitary and capricious and that the PCs couldn't ask what is Good or Evil in this context and get an answer. 

The fact the Player may disagree with the answer is irrelevant because the world is fictional. Hell the GM may not in RL agree with what is objectively Good in the fictional cosmology he just created but he can still give an answer.

Quote from: Pat on April 09, 2021, 08:47:46 AM

Quote from: Omega on April 09, 2021, 06:22:07 AM
5e Basic also has no Detect evil. Standard game though Detect Evil is the weirdest yet. It does not detect evil at all? It detects Abberrants, Fiends, etc. WTF???

I'm not familiar with 5e, but that's one of the variations on detect evil that's always made a lot of sense, from a game standpoint. In D&D, the Outer Planes are the alignment planes, each inhabited by, infused by, and iconic exemplars of the 8/9/17 alignments.

The full spell is Detect Evil and good.
Detects any aberrant, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend or undead. Or any area that has been consecrated or desecrated. So more like "Detect Things from Beyond"

This is probably the most dirt simple version of the spell. If one can still call it a version of the spell at this point. Cast spell, know location of any weird whatever in radius. It does not tell you what they are. Just where. Since it says nothing about telling you if the beings detected are good or evil since thats not what the spell is actually looking for. A thoroughly evil human or orc could be standing right behind you and... nope... nada.

Most mis-named spell yet.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on April 10, 2021, 12:51:59 PM

Does noone read spell descriptions anymore? Or is everyone playing different games than myself? All this hand-wringing over such a straightforward spell that actually has very little to do with alignment is silly.

So far all but maybe one version of the spell actually pinged alignment - and it pinged any alignment not the casters own.

Quote from: Omega on April 10, 2021, 06:13:13 PM
The full spell is Detect Evil and good.
Detects any aberrant, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend or undead. Or any area that has been consecrated or desecrated. So more like "Detect Things from Beyond"

This is probably the most dirt simple version of the spell. If one can still call it a version of the spell at this point. Cast spell, know location of any weird whatever in radius. It does not tell you what they are. Just where. Since it says nothing about telling you if the beings detected are good or evil since thats not what the spell is actually looking for. A thoroughly evil human or orc could be standing right behind you and... nope... nada.

Most mis-named spell yet.

While I'm not familiar with 5e, based on your description I'd agree. Should be detect outsider, or something like that.

A quite workable solution is to have multiple spells. The simplest version would just detect outsiders, i.e. anything from outside the Prime. This would catch anything from the Inner Planes, the Far Realm, the Outer Planes, wherever. Then have spells that can detect more precise origins. Spells that detect creatures from the inner planes, from the Far Realms, and so on. These could be separate spells, or just a higher level and more powerful spell, like true sight, that can make finer distinctions. Might even be able to detect the precise plane, or creatures from other Primes.

Detect good/evil would be distinct from all that, because it's not detecting the planar origin. Rather, it's making a judgment based on the standards of a particular mythology.

In a Great Wheel-style cosmology, this would catch things from the Outer Planes and the energy planes, and nothing else, and then sort them along a Upper/Lower and Positive/Negative divide.

In a cosmology where each mythology has its own astral realm (i.e. connect all of the Nine Worlds together for Norse mythology, instead of putting Loki in Pandemonium or Hel next to Hades), this would vary based on the divine realm that's the source of the spell. In general, anything from a divine realm that's associated with good or evil would by detected as such by spells that drawn from that mythology. I.e., if you're a priest of Odin you'd detect the Jotun as evil. Whether elements from other divine realms detect as good or evil depends on the cosmological source of the spell. The Romans for instance seemed adopt local gods and judge them based on that, so their priests would probably detect the Celtic gods as good or evil based on how the Celts viewed them. Whereas medieval Christianity either absorbed pagan elements, or treated it as the Devil's work, meaning the divine stuff of all other religions would detect as evil. This could also extend to certain other things that are considered evil or good, like undead or the fey, and even make personal judgments (too much adultery, cowardice in battle, recently confessed, died valiantly, etc.)

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on April 10, 2021, 12:51:59 PM
I just looked through the copies of D&D that I have on hand, and none of them describe Detect Evil as detecting evil alignment. Only one of the games even has Evil as an alignment (Blueholme).

Old School Essentials:
"Objects enchanted for evil purposes or living beings with evil intentions are caused to magically glow."

Blueholme Journeymanne Rules:
"The caster can sense the presence of evil objects, as well as evil intentions or thoughts of any creature within range of the spell. The spell also gives some idea of the degree of evil, and possibly whether the source is lawful or chaotic."

ODND:
"A spell to detect evil thought or intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object. Note that poison, for example, is neither good nor evil. Duration: 2 turns. Range: 6"."


Does noone read spell descriptions anymore? Or is everyone playing different games than myself? All this hand-wringing over such a straightforward spell that actually has very little to do with alignment is silly.

I used a shorthand of "Detect Evil" to cover all of the divination abilities that determine such things as alignment. Including Know Alignment, which was an AD&D spell, and introduced the concept of being able to determine someone's alignment to the game. My most recent experience with that type of ability was the Paladin's ability to Detect Evil from Pathfinder 1e.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/detect-evil

Quote from: Visitor Q on April 10, 2021, 05:52:34 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 03:12:34 PM

Quote from: Visitor Q on April 09, 2021, 02:38:52 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 01:01:57 PM

Quote from: Visitor Q on April 09, 2021, 12:19:45 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 09, 2021, 10:13:03 AM
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF "objective" morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game. You can claim "objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because 'fantasy'—CHECKMATE!" all you want, but that still doesn't give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF "evil" is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don't have the tools to properly assess it.

Considering there are numerous real world philosophies that do make decent of arguable claims as to be able to define and assess objective morality it is rather strange to assert that a fantasy world where the author (or GM) has perfect cosmological control can not simulate this.

You can give a flat disagreement about something but it doesn't make the opinion valid. This is as true for scientific fact as it is for logic, as it is for philosophy, as it is for morality.

Also to consider that as for the spell Detect Evil the morality of Good or Evil isn't really necessary. Only how the creator of the spell defined Evil. Equally Evil alignment doesn't equal dangerous or even illegal. The mercenary captain that guards the town maybe Lawful Evil etc.

Considering that there are numerous real world philosophies that make decent claims to the contrary and there is still no consensus on such matters despite millennia of debate on the topic, that the objective of an RPG is to play a game, not to break down into protracted philosophical discussions about the nature of good and evil, and that an author with complete and total control over their story is in no way analogous to a GM who needs to share their world with their players as part of a shared group activity with random elements like dice or cards affecting the outcome of things, where they can't ever have 100% the same amount of control an actual author has (no matter how superficially similar those two might seem to be), that leads me back to my original point. We don't have the tools to properly assess WTF "objective" good and evil is. We don't even have an agreement about WTF "objective" morality even entails, even at an academic level, where the subject has been rehashed to death since time immemorial and is still debated to this day. Yet SOMEHOW we're supposed to portray it in a satisfactory way in a game as part of a shared group activity with plenty of people who might disagree about any of these subjects even mean?

Consider the conclusion to you post. Here you're claiming that the outcome of a Detect Evil spell is ultimately defined by the creator(caster?), which is an inherently subjective notion, and goes against the idea of objective morality. If objective morality is a thing and we can properly assess it in gameplay, then WTF does how a caster define evil matter? If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.

There are people who think the world is flat. Not every opinion is valid. The fact there is debate academic or otherwise is irrelevant. Academics haven't worked out what a man or a woman is yet while the rest of the world moves on.

To the gaming point if a GM says in the game world then something is objectively evil then it is. A player can choose to play a character who doesn't believe that or can leave the game but it doesn't detract from the "reality" of the game world. At a certain point if all the consequences for being good or evil manifest up to and including literal divine judgement then discussions about "but was that really evil?" just become intellectual masturbation.

The second point about the intention of the creator of the spell (as in the original sorcerer who developed it) was a separate point about how to use the spell practically. It wasn't related to the A-level philosophy debate.

There are people who think that they know the objective definition of morality. That doesn't mean that their definition is correct or sidestep the fact that there's no consensus on the subject, even to the point where I've yet to see a single person here arguing in favor of objective morality (fictional or otherwise) provide a clear example of it that can consistently be implemented during play other than "alignment is really about factions within the game world".

A GM may rule that whatever they say IS in fact "objective evil" (at least within the context of their world), but that doesn't change the fact that we're ultimately still going by the GM's whims on whatever they think qualifies as "evil" that day, which isn't a workable standard that players can effectively fall back on, since they can't know what the GM's whims are until after the fact, after they've already stepped on one of these morality landmines. And saying that the players can just up and leave if they don't like it doesn't tell me how to properly implement these "objective standards" during play. It just tells me that we can just push them and let the campaign fall apart if players don't like it. Which I can easily sidestep by simply not treating morality as some objective measure I have to waste time pushing onto players or trying to judge during play, and seems to me a more effective way to handle the game than pretending that we as humans can effectively declare what is or isn't objectively moral.

The point about the spell only highlights my point. If we have to come up with work arounds to implement these spells in practical terms during play, then clearly declaring objective morality to be real, even if only within the context of the game world, doesn't really solve anything. Since it provides no practical solutions to how to handle things during play other than "the GM's way or the highway". We still need some sort of guideline of how to use these spells in a practical sense during play, and declaring morality to be objective doesn't seem to be it. It's always some other proxy, such as "the spells work only vs supernatural good/evil", or "based on the caster's intent", or "alignment is just an in-game faction".

A GMs "whims" assumes it would be arbitary and capricious and that the PCs couldn't ask what is Good or Evil in this context and get an answer. 

The fact the Player may disagree with the answer is irrelevant because the world is fictional. Hell the GM may not in RL agree with what is objectively Good in the fictional cosmology he just created but he can still give an answer.

This assumes that every GM has a specialized, highly detailed definition of what is "Good" or "Evil" work out for their campaign, as opposed to just operating under their own understanding of what good and evil is, which is closer my own experience of how those things usually go down. One GM may come from more morally complex expectations in their game (were good guys never kill prisoners, for example), while the player may come with a more simplified black & white "kill all bad guys" view typical of video games, or vice versa (sometimes I've been the morally complex player in a munchkin campaign where paladins can execute prisoners). Then the player says their character kills the prisoners and the GM reacts to that based on the idea that the PC just committed an evil act and the whole interaction goes from there, rather than warning the player or either of them realizing that they're both operating under different assumptions of what counts as "Good" or "Evil", or the possible impact of evil actions in the game.

Also, the fact that the world is fictional is irrelevant to my point, because I'm talking about playability, not about what can or can't hypothetically exist within the context of a fictional world. My question is how do we handle these moral issues in gameplay, and is it even necessary or desirable, specially from a rules-based perspective (RP about deeper moral or philosophical issues between characters is a different issue)?

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 10, 2021, 07:58:58 PM
Also, the fact that the world is fictional is irrelevant to my point, because I'm talking about playability, not about what can or can't hypothetically exist within the context of a fictional world. My question is how do we handle these moral issues in gameplay, and is it even necessary or desirable, specially from a rules-based perspective (RP about deeper moral or philosophical issues between characters is a different issue)?

I've played in 4-color superhero settings that have hard-locked good/evil lines where trying to use deeper thought is out of genre. A fantasy setting can do the same.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 10, 2021, 07:07:37 PM
I used a shorthand of "Detect Evil" to cover all of the divination abilities that determine such things as alignment. Including Know Alignment, which was an AD&D spell, and introduced the concept of being able to determine someone's alignment to the game. My most recent experience with that type of ability was the Paladin's ability to Detect Evil from Pathfinder 1e.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/detect-evil

Stepping outside bog standard Detect Evil then lets see,
OD&D has nothing else.
BX has Know Alignment which reveals the alignment of any one creature or item. Law, Neutral or Chaos.
AD&D has Know Alignment which shows the alignment of up to 10. It can be reversed to prevent alignment detection.
Psionic Detect Evil/Good had a chance to reveal the exact alignment. Otherwise it just had a chance to read the good/evil part of alignment.
Psionic Empathy could pick up the current emotional state.
Psionic Aura Alteration allowed to change what detection powers read on the user.
2e likely has much the same in the Psionics book which I do not have on hand at the moment.

After reading and thinking about it...

    Spell Level 1 (cleric) or 2 (magic-user)

Detects evil thought, intent, or an evilly enchanted objects.

Is it thought crime tho? I guess it depends on what the PCs do after the spell is used, take for instance an evil character that is so inept their evil schemes always end up doing good. Do you punish him because his intent was evil? Then it is thought crime.

Now take a different character, it has evil thoughts, but you don't know if he has acted on them. Do you punish him? Then it is thought crime.

An easy fix is to change the way the spell works, it only detects those who have done evil things or evilly enchanted objects. Then the PCs can't punish the innocent.

But does this "fix" give your characters better moral dillemas? IMHO, no, it doesn't. It removes the moral dilema, if that's what you want then more power to you.

IMHO the spell is perfect as it is, it creates oportunities for the PCs to do evil things (Punish creatures for thought crime), thus acting (probably) against their alignment.

If I were to fix it, I would add the option to choose to detect intent or taint, defining taint as the spiritual mark evil actions leave on you. So you cast and have to choose at casting time between one or the other.

Or, add detect alignment, this one detects the taint, while detect evil detects thoughts/intentions.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 11:57:19 AM
After reading and thinking about it...

    Spell Level 1 (cleric) or 2 (magic-user)

Detects evil thought, intent, or an evilly enchanted objects.

Relative to the caster.

Quote from: estar on April 12, 2021, 12:43:34 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 11:57:19 AM
After reading and thinking about it...

    Spell Level 1 (cleric) or 2 (magic-user)

Detects evil thought, intent, or an evilly enchanted objects.

Relative to the caster.

Except in a world where the gods are real and do interact with the mortals there's no relative morality.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 01:03:49 PM
Except in a world where the gods are real and do interact with the mortals there's no relative morality.

However that may be, the description of the spell in OD&D makes it relative to the caster. In later editions people did not focus on that which makes Detect Evil and elaborate "danger sense" for a couple of minutes. Instead they focused on the name of the spells and took it way too literally.

As this thread demonstrates try to tie the spell to some sense of morality is a subjective fool's errand forcing the referee to consider various existential questions just to make a ruling.

My recommendation is not to go down that route. Instead focus on it ability to discover hostile intent towards the caster and magical danger to the caster. A much easier and more straight forward criteria to adjudicate with.

If you want to have "evil" in the classical sense still involved with the spell then pick a supernatural evil like devils or demons. Keep the "danger sense" aspect, but also have it reliably detect any diabolic or demonic threat or items that has a diabolic or demonic taint.

I been handling Detect Evil this way successfully without using alignment for decades and with classic D&D without alignments for the past 10 years.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 01:03:49 PM

Quote from: estar on April 12, 2021, 12:43:34 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 11:57:19 AM
After reading and thinking about it...

    Spell Level 1 (cleric) or 2 (magic-user)

Detects evil thought, intent, or an evilly enchanted objects.

Relative to the caster.

Except in a world where the gods are real and do interact with the mortals there's no relative morality.

Yeah. That's why my Divine Caster Detect Evil was a "my god wants this smote" detector. An example would be if there was an Humakt expy (God of Truth and Death, to whom undead are anathema), Detect Evil by Humakti Priest will ping when undead are near, but ignore an assassin.

I think this was clarified in-game when a Paladin of Pelor was alarmed that I didn't have a Goblin tribe (who were definitely Evil in alignment, but concentrating more on survival in the wilderness than rampaging against Human lands) ping the Detect Evil they had up.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 01:03:49 PM

Quote from: estar on April 12, 2021, 12:43:34 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 11:57:19 AM
After reading and thinking about it...

    Spell Level 1 (cleric) or 2 (magic-user)

Detects evil thought, intent, or an evilly enchanted objects.

Relative to the caster.

Except in a world where the gods are real and do interact with the mortals there's no relative morality.

No, there still is. Look at the Greek myths, for instance. Their gods were patrons to sucked up to or feared, not some absolute standard of morality. If the gods are just folks with tons of power, or alien beings, or anything other than abstract ideals in a modern highly moralistic religion, then it's more about power than morality.

More than that, if you have multiple religions in the game, they're probably going to have conflicting definitions of good and evil. It's perfectly possible to run a game where Christian paladins are battling Muslim paladins in the holy land, and both are smiting the fuck out each other.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 02:28:42 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 01:03:49 PM

Quote from: estar on April 12, 2021, 12:43:34 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 11:57:19 AM
After reading and thinking about it...

    Spell Level 1 (cleric) or 2 (magic-user)

Detects evil thought, intent, or an evilly enchanted objects.

Relative to the caster.

Except in a world where the gods are real and do interact with the mortals there's no relative morality.

No, there still is. Look at the Greek myths, for instance. Their gods were patrons to sucked up to or feared, not some absolute standard of morality. If the gods are just folks with tons of power, or alien beings, or anything other than abstract ideals in a modern highly moralistic religion, then it's more about power than morality.

More than that, if you have multiple religions in the game, they're probably going to have conflicting definitions of good and evil. It's perfectly possible to run a game where Christian paladins are battling Muslim paladins in the holy land, and both are smiting the fuck out each other.

Greek gods weren't real tho. IF...

Probably...

Your game about Christians vs Muslims... You do understand that only one of those religions can be true right? So, if in your game God is real, then it follows one of those IS evil.

Your argument is invalid.

Quote from: estar on April 12, 2021, 01:25:34 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 01:03:49 PM
Except in a world where the gods are real and do interact with the mortals there's no relative morality.

However that may be, the description of the spell in OD&D makes it relative to the caster. In later editions people did not focus on that which makes Detect Evil and elaborate "danger sense" for a couple of minutes. Instead they focused on the name of the spells and took it way too literally.

As this thread demonstrates try to tie the spell to some sense of morality is a subjective fool's errand forcing the referee to consider various existential questions just to make a ruling.

My recommendation is not to go down that route. Instead focus on it ability to discover hostile intent towards the caster and magical danger to the caster. A much easier and more straight forward criteria to adjudicate with.

If you want to have "evil" in the classical sense still involved with the spell then pick a supernatural evil like devils or demons. Keep the "danger sense" aspect, but also have it reliably detect any diabolic or demonic threat or items that has a diabolic or demonic taint.

I been handling Detect Evil this way successfully without using alignment for decades and with classic D&D without alignments for the past 10 years.

I agree, but, if you don't have Evil in your world, then killing on sight Goblins, Orcs, etc can't be called moral.

And if you do have Evil then anyone that's Evil is a threat, either right now or in the future.

So you have God or gods and Demons, Evil beings worship Demons.

I do like your way of handling the spell by the way.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 02:46:39 PM

Quote from: estar on April 12, 2021, 01:25:34 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 01:03:49 PM
Except in a world where the gods are real and do interact with the mortals there's no relative morality.

However that may be, the description of the spell in OD&D makes it relative to the caster. In later editions people did not focus on that which makes Detect Evil and elaborate "danger sense" for a couple of minutes. Instead they focused on the name of the spells and took it way too literally.

As this thread demonstrates try to tie the spell to some sense of morality is a subjective fool's errand forcing the referee to consider various existential questions just to make a ruling.

My recommendation is not to go down that route. Instead focus on it ability to discover hostile intent towards the caster and magical danger to the caster. A much easier and more straight forward criteria to adjudicate with.

If you want to have "evil" in the classical sense still involved with the spell then pick a supernatural evil like devils or demons. Keep the "danger sense" aspect, but also have it reliably detect any diabolic or demonic threat or items that has a diabolic or demonic taint.

I been handling Detect Evil this way successfully without using alignment for decades and with classic D&D without alignments for the past 10 years.

I agree, but, if you don't have Evil in your world, then killing on sight Goblins, Orcs, etc can't be called moral.

And if you do have Evil then anyone that's Evil is a threat, either right now or in the future.

So you have God or gods and Demons, Evil beings worship Demons.

I do like your way of handling the spell by the way.

Greetings!

In my campaigns, I don't have Player characters going up to the drive-thru and having a chat with the gods.

The relationships of the gods to their mortal worshippers and to all of reality is intentionally left vague, with various elements or events open to interpretation.

Essentially, there is the Spirit World, of whatever dimensions. What goes on therein, the various details, are entirely separate from whatever the Player characters know, or think they know.

This way I, as the DM, I don't get into circular theological and moral arguments with the *Players*. I let their *Characters* argue plenty amongst themselves or with NPC's. They make all kinds of arguments and counter-arguments.

Kill them all. Let God sort them out! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 02:46:39 PM
I do like your way of handling the spell by the way.

Thanks!

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 02:46:39 PM
I agree, but, if you don't have Evil in your world, then killing on sight Goblins, Orcs, etc can't be called moral.

So the way I handle things in my Majestic Wilderlands/Majestic Fantasy Realms is that Demons are EVIL. They are corrupted beings who have spiritually damaged their souls and are now incapable of good.

If it not supernatural and is sentient it has free will.

But there is a big but. In my mythology the myriad races other than Human and Elves were all created by the Demons by twisting humans into various forms (Dwarves, Orcs) and hybrids (Centaurs, Lizardmen). They all free will but many of these races have physiological issues that make living with other races problematic. Introduced by the Demons in their quest for the perfect servitor race when they briefly ruled creation at the beginning of time.

Orcs
The issue with Orcs is that their aggression range has been shifted radically over the the aggression end of the scale. In addition they between tweaked to respond to strong leaders. Establish dominance over an orc then their aggression will subside. This aspect of orc psychology has cause the race to live apart from other cultures. 

Goblins
The goblins were altered by the demon to be more focused. Once a goblin adopts a task or idea it become their obsession for years or decades.  Unlike Orcs there are goblins part of various other culture and some goblins civilizations as well. Many tribal goblins become fixated on survival above all else. Those goblins are hard to reason with and often it just not possible and hence conflict arises.

The Gods
My campaign is set during a time where there competing religions espousing different philosophies of life. Some can co-exist, others are viewed as unpleasant by most cultures. The gods view themselves as teachers first and foremost operating through faith and religion. For priests and other keeping their faith, the gods permit themselves to lend supernatural aid.  God all oppose the demons but some their teachings conflict. A well known example is Mitra (honor and justice) and Set (order and war). Other gods were impacted by the conflict with the demons and have adopted extreme philosophies that they now teach.

Morality
Overall morality works like it does in life. Everyone sentient being has the capacity to choose good and evil. However nobody is an island and grow affected by their physiology, their culture, their religion, and their philosophies. From this like in our history conflict arise both good and evil acts are done.

But demons and everything they touch is EVIL. They will lie and deceive to delude others that they are just misunderstood. But in end a demon is spiritually damaged to the point where everything they do ultimately for their own selfish ends even if the payoff is years or decades down the road. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 02:46:39 PM
And if you do have Evil then anyone that's Evil is a threat, either right now or in the future.

So you have God or gods and Demons, Evil beings worship Demons.

So what happen was that I was the guy who let people "trash" his setting back in the day. Want to be king, "OK". But you had to work for whatever it is you wanted to do as your player. I wasn't going to hand it over on a nicely wrapped box. To make this interesting I learned how to paint a picture of regions with various nuances in folk's motivations and goals. Being well-read helped as well as played a lot of historical wargames.

Within a few years of starting this (I ran my first campaign this in 1980), I jettisoned alignment. Too simplistic for what I was doing. But I still wanted something that was clearly EVIL. So the triad of Devil, Daemons, and Demons became it when I still used AD&D 1e. Later when I switched to Fantasy Hero and then GURPS. I pared down the huge rogues gallery of D&D into a more managable number of groups. That when demons became the EVIL.

Yet GURPS and other RPGs I played still had stuff similar to Detect Evil. So through various campaigns I settled on hostile intent with the demons the embodiment of true evil. So when I returned to using OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. I was pleasantly surprised to see that how Detect Evil was originally used. And I still don't use alignments.

Overall there are elements of my campaign and character creation that are considered to be "good" by my players and some that are not. The main difference is a quality I called "pleasantness" Players rather deal with or be a cleric of Dannu the goddess of healing than deal with or be a cleric of Set. The same with different regions of my campaign world. Players gravitate to the ones they consider more "pleasant".

But this is only a board trend and it varied from group to group.

Wrapping it up
I have a cosmology and mythology that works nice for me. Doesn't mean it the only way to approach this. In general my recommendations are

• Define a source of true supernatural evil.
• Give a plausible reason why a race or culture can't co-exist.
• For everything else if it hostile then it a problem and magic can and should reveal that hostility. I say should because that one of the things players expect out of a magic system.

Hope this helps.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 02:42:17 PM
Greek gods weren't real tho. IF...

Probably...

So which gods are real, and which aren't?

Feel free to just stick to major modern religions.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 02:42:17 PM
Your game about Christians vs Muslims... You do understand that only one of those religions can be true right? So, if in your game God is real, then it follows one of those IS evil.

Your argument is invalid.

If they both get smites again each other, how can could you tell?

The existence of supernatural powers doesn't automatically answer all metaphysical questions. In fact, it probably raises more than it dispels.

Quote from: estar on April 12, 2021, 03:25:29 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 02:46:39 PM
I do like your way of handling the spell by the way.

Thanks!

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 02:46:39 PM
I agree, but, if you don't have Evil in your world, then killing on sight Goblins, Orcs, etc can't be called moral.

So the way I handle things in my Majestic Wilderlands/Majestic Fantasy Realms is that Demons are EVIL. They are corrupted beings who have spiritually damaged their souls and are now incapable of good.

If it not supernatural and is sentient it has free will.

But there is a big but. In my mythology the myriad races other than Human and Elves were all created by the Demons by twisting humans into various forms (Dwarves, Orcs) and hybrids (Centaurs, Lizardmen). They all free will but many of these races have physiological issues that make living with other races problematic. Introduced by the Demons in their quest for the perfect servitor race when they briefly ruled creation at the beginning of time.

Orcs
The issue with Orcs is that their aggression range has been shifted radically over the the aggression end of the scale. In addition they between tweaked to respond to strong leaders. Establish dominance over an orc then their aggression will subside. This aspect of orc psychology has cause the race to live apart from other cultures. 

Goblins
The goblins were altered by the demon to be more focused. Once a goblin adopts a task or idea it become their obsession for years or decades.  Unlike Orcs there are goblins part of various other culture and some goblins civilizations as well. Many tribal goblins become fixated on survival above all else. Those goblins are hard to reason with and often it just not possible and hence conflict arises.

The Gods
My campaign is set during a time where there competing religions espousing different philosophies of life. Some can co-exist, others are viewed as unpleasant by most cultures. The gods view themselves as teachers first and foremost operating through faith and religion. For priests and other keeping their faith, the gods permit themselves to lend supernatural aid.  God all oppose the demons but some their teachings conflict. A well known example is Mitra (honor and justice) and Set (order and war). Other gods were impacted by the conflict with the demons and have adopted extreme philosophies that they now teach.

Morality
Overall morality works like it does in life. Everyone sentient being has the capacity to choose good and evil. However nobody is an island and grow affected by their physiology, their culture, their religion, and their philosophies. From this like in our history conflict arise both good and evil acts are done.

But demons and everything they touch is EVIL. They will lie and deceive to delude others that they are just misunderstood. But in end a demon is spiritually damaged to the point where everything they do ultimately for their own selfish ends even if the payoff is years or decades down the road. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 02:46:39 PM
And if you do have Evil then anyone that's Evil is a threat, either right now or in the future.

So you have God or gods and Demons, Evil beings worship Demons.

So what happen was that I was the guy who let people "trash" his setting back in the day. Want to be king, "OK". But you had to work for whatever it is you wanted to do as your player. I wasn't going to hand it over on a nicely wrapped box. To make this interesting I learned how to paint a picture of regions with various nuances in folk's motivations and goals. Being well-read helped as well as played a lot of historical wargames.

Within a few years of starting this (I ran my first campaign this in 1980), I jettisoned alignment. Too simplistic for what I was doing. But I still wanted something that was clearly EVIL. So the triad of Devil, Daemons, and Demons became it when I still used AD&D 1e. Later when I switched to Fantasy Hero and then GURPS. I pared down the huge rogues gallery of D&D into a more managable number of groups. That when demons became the EVIL.

Yet GURPS and other RPGs I played still had stuff similar to Detect Evil. So through various campaigns I settled on hostile intent with the demons the embodiment of true evil. So when I returned to using OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. I was pleasantly surprised to see that how Detect Evil was originally used. And I still don't use alignments.

Overall there are elements of my campaign and character creation that are considered to be "good" by my players and some that are not. The main difference is a quality I called "pleasantness" Players rather deal with or be a cleric of Dannu the goddess of healing than deal with or be a cleric of Set. The same with different regions of my campaign world. Players gravitate to the ones they consider more "pleasant".

But this is only a board trend and it varied from group to group.

Wrapping it up
I have a cosmology and mythology that works nice for me. Doesn't mean it the only way to approach this. In general my recommendations are

• Define a source of true supernatural evil.
• Give a plausible reason why a race or culture can't co-exist.
• For everything else if it hostile then it a problem and magic can and should reveal that hostility. I say should because that one of the things players expect out of a magic system.

Hope this helps.

Can't say I disagree with how you run your games, and like I already said I do like how you handle some of it. Not that I'm going to throw away evil races as a whole and switch to your way forever, but I think I might like to try your style.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
So which gods are real, and which aren't?

All Gods are not real except for your God I mean.

Quote from: Shasarak on April 12, 2021, 04:50:11 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
So which gods are real, and which aren't?

All Gods are not real except for your God I mean.

What if I believe in all gods at once? Does that mean they're all real?

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:24:51 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 02:42:17 PM
Greek gods weren't real tho. IF...

Probably...

So which gods are real, and which aren't?

Feel free to just stick to major modern religions.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 02:42:17 PM
Your game about Christians vs Muslims... You do understand that only one of those religions can be true right? So, if in your game God is real, then it follows one of those IS evil.

Your argument is invalid.

If they both get smites again each other, how can could you tell?

The existence of supernatural powers doesn't automatically answer all metaphysical questions. In fact, it probably raises more than it dispels.

Greek gods weren't, aren't and will never be real. As in something that exists beyond the imagination of their creators/worshippers.

As for Christians vs Muslims, both are monotheistic, both claim the same God, both can't be true, ergo one must be Evil in a world where God IS real.

In that same world any other religion should be Evil, by definition.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:51:07 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 12, 2021, 04:50:11 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
So which gods are real, and which aren't?

All Gods are not real except for your God I mean.

What if I believe in all gods at once? Does that mean they're all real?

But we're not talking about belief, in the real world you have faith, in the game world you don't because you interact with the God/Gods and see their works.

You might say someone thinks they are aliens posturing as Gods, (Aliens in a pseudo medieval world...) but you can't say that someone believes they arent real, as in they do not exist and are only the product of your imagination+faith.

Stop mixing real world stuff with the game world.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
Greek gods weren't, aren't and will never be real. As in something that exists beyond the imagination of their creators/worshippers.

Just Greek gods? How about Norse gods? Hindu? Hebrew? Don't tell me you don't believe in Bob?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
As for Christians vs Muslims, both are monotheistic, both claim the same God, both can't be true, ergo one must be Evil in a world where God IS real.

In that same world any other religion should be Evil, by definition.

But if their worshipers can smite each other, then once again the deeper question of which is reeeeaaaaalllly good and which is reeeeaaaaalllly evil remains subjective, even though at least two objective definitions of good and evil exist in the world.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:55:07 PM
Stop mixing real world stuff with the game world.

That's exactly what you're doing. You can't separate your own personal beliefs from the game.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:55:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
Greek gods weren't, aren't and will never be real. As in something that exists beyond the imagination of their creators/worshippers.

Just Greek gods? How about Norse gods? Hindu? Hebrew? Don't tell me you don't believe in Bob?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
As for Christians vs Muslims, both are monotheistic, both claim the same God, both can't be true, ergo one must be Evil in a world where God IS real.

In that same world any other religion should be Evil, by definition.

But if their worshipers can smite each other, then once again the deeper question of which is reeeeaaaaalllly good and which is reeeeaaaaalllly evil remains subjective, even though at least two objective definitions of good and evil exist in the world.

Stop being disingenuous, YOU brought Greek gods as an example, which is why I talk about them specifically.

Once more, no, it's not subjective, IF the Christians are correct then the Muslims aren't, IF their monotheistic God exists then one of them must be wrong and therefore Evil.

The Devil wouldn't give his followers the ability to smite the followers of God right?

Remember, YOU brought the Christian vs Muslim thing, not me, and yet you'll proceed on your next post to claim it's MY beliefs that prevent me from agreing with your relativistic PO in the Game World.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:56:35 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:55:07 PM
Stop mixing real world stuff with the game world.

That's exactly what you're doing. You can't separate your own personal beliefs from the game.

Wrongo bongo

You brought the Greek gods as an example, when I argue against YOUR example you retreat to your bailey and ask about other gods.

YOU brought the Christians vs Muslims as an example (in a game), when I argue against YOUR example you claim it's MY beliefs that prevent me from agreing with your insertion of YOUR moral relativism in the game world.

I wonder if you're being intentionally disingenuous or you can't see what you're doing.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 05:04:22 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:55:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
Greek gods weren't, aren't and will never be real. As in something that exists beyond the imagination of their creators/worshippers.

Just Greek gods? How about Norse gods? Hindu? Hebrew? Don't tell me you don't believe in Bob?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
As for Christians vs Muslims, both are monotheistic, both claim the same God, both can't be true, ergo one must be Evil in a world where God IS real.

In that same world any other religion should be Evil, by definition.

But if their worshipers can smite each other, then once again the deeper question of which is reeeeaaaaalllly good and which is reeeeaaaaalllly evil remains subjective, even though at least two objective definitions of good and evil exist in the world.

Stop being disingenuous, YOU brought Greek gods as an example, which is why I talk about them specifically.

Once more, no, it's not subjective, IF the Christians are correct then the Muslims aren't, IF their monotheistic God exists then one of them must be wrong and therefore Evil.

The Devil wouldn't give his followers the ability to smite the followers of God right?

Remember, YOU brought the Christian vs Muslim thing, not me, and yet you'll proceed on your next post to claim it's MY beliefs that prevent me from agreing with your relativistic PO in the Game World.

You still haven't answered the question. And I'm being disingenuous?

And you're still entirely missing the point. You're talking about absolute truths. That's not the same thing as objective. You can have objective good and evil in a world, and still deny they're really really good and evil, in the broader sense of those words (morally and metaphysically, as opposed to the it burns it burns physical reactions or evildar pings). In fact, you have have multiple versions of objective good and evil in a world. That's what allows competing belief systems in a world where good and evil have objective reality.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 05:07:24 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:56:35 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:55:07 PM
Stop mixing real world stuff with the game world.

That's exactly what you're doing. You can't separate your own personal beliefs from the game.

Wrongo bongo

You brought the Greek gods as an example, when I argue against YOUR example you retreat to your bailey and ask about other gods.

YOU brought the Christians vs Muslims as an example (in a game), when I argue against YOUR example you claim it's MY beliefs that prevent me from agreing with your insertion of YOUR moral relativism in the game world.

I wonder if you're being intentionally disingenuous or you can't see what you're doing.

No, you just claimed they were fictional. Without explaining why or how you came to that conclusion, or how the reasoning that dismisses a set of gods that were once accepted by millions of people doesn't also apply to every other god or belief system that's ever been created. That's why I questioned you about them.

Again, your last statement is a perfect description of my reaction to your posts.

Quote from: estar on April 12, 2021, 01:25:34 PM
However that may be, the description of the spell in OD&D makes it relative to the caster. In later editions people did not focus on that which makes Detect Evil and elaborate "danger sense" for a couple of minutes. Instead they focused on the name of the spells and took it way too literally.

See my notes above on each iterations idea of this spell.
Of them only a few actually detect evil/good.
O is intent.
BX is intent
AD&D is alignment not the casters.
2e is intent
3e is alignment with chance of being shocked by hither level creatures.
nothing for 4e
5e is the most misnamed spell ever as this "detect" instead detects non prime material creatures. Alignment has nothing to do with it or even intent.

So 3 go off intent. 2 off alignment in some way, and one hies off and detects other planars.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 05:11:12 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 05:04:22 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:55:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
Greek gods weren't, aren't and will never be real. As in something that exists beyond the imagination of their creators/worshippers.

Just Greek gods? How about Norse gods? Hindu? Hebrew? Don't tell me you don't believe in Bob?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
As for Christians vs Muslims, both are monotheistic, both claim the same God, both can't be true, ergo one must be Evil in a world where God IS real.

In that same world any other religion should be Evil, by definition.

But if their worshipers can smite each other, then once again the deeper question of which is reeeeaaaaalllly good and which is reeeeaaaaalllly evil remains subjective, even though at least two objective definitions of good and evil exist in the world.

Stop being disingenuous, YOU brought Greek gods as an example, which is why I talk about them specifically.

Once more, no, it's not subjective, IF the Christians are correct then the Muslims aren't, IF their monotheistic God exists then one of them must be wrong and therefore Evil.

The Devil wouldn't give his followers the ability to smite the followers of God right?

Remember, YOU brought the Christian vs Muslim thing, not me, and yet you'll proceed on your next post to claim it's MY beliefs that prevent me from agreing with your relativistic PO in the Game World.

You still haven't answered the question. And I'm being disingenuous?

And you're still entirely missing the point. You're talking about absolute truths. That's not the same thing as objective. You can have objective good and evil in a world, and still deny they're really really good and evil, in the broader sense of those words (morally and metaphysically, as opposed to the it burns it burns physical reactions or evildar pings). In fact, you have have multiple versions of objective good and evil in a world. That's what allows competing belief systems in a world where good and evil have objective reality.

But I have answered the question, it's not my fault you lack reading comprehension.

Belief/Faith doesn't make the stuff you believe real. You might believe Earth is Flat, millions once did and maybe millions still do, it doesn't make Earth flat.

Once again, in YOUR example of a game about Christians vs Muslims where their monotheistic God (both claim the same God) IS real one of them has to be wrong, and if both have the supernatural ability to smite the other it follows that one gets it from God and the other from the Devil.

So, one of them is Good and the other is Evil.

There's no relativism, because if their God IS real it follows that the Devil IS real too, therefore one of them is worshipping the Devil and getting their supernatural abilities from it.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 05:12:46 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 05:07:24 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:56:35 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:55:07 PM
Stop mixing real world stuff with the game world.

That's exactly what you're doing. You can't separate your own personal beliefs from the game.

Wrongo bongo

You brought the Greek gods as an example, when I argue against YOUR example you retreat to your bailey and ask about other gods.

YOU brought the Christians vs Muslims as an example (in a game), when I argue against YOUR example you claim it's MY beliefs that prevent me from agreing with your insertion of YOUR moral relativism in the game world.

I wonder if you're being intentionally disingenuous or you can't see what you're doing.

No, you just claimed they were fictional. Without explaining why or how you came to that conclusion, or how the reasoning that dismisses a set of gods that were once accepted by millions of people doesn't also apply to every other god or belief system that's ever been created. That's why I questioned you about them.

Again, your last statement is a perfect description of my reaction to your posts.

Yep, because they ARE fictional, I don't need to justify a conclusion almost all the world accepts as correct and has for several hundreds of years, I guess if they were real they would have smitten the unbelievers a long time ago for not worshipṕing them and we would see Minotaurs and other shit.

I never claimed the reasoning for the Greek Gods doesn't also apply to jack shit, that's YOU trying to put words in my mouth.

And by trying to put words in my mouth you answered my question about if you know that you're being disingenuous. End of conversation, I don't enjoy arguing with disingenuous pricks.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 05:27:49 PM

And by trying to put words in my mouth you answered my question about if you know that you're being disingenuous. End of conversation, I don't enjoy arguing with disingenuous pricks.

No, you didn't answer the question. That's a lie.

And no, I didn't put any words in your mouth. I asked questions. Which is an invitation for you to explain your position. That's the complete opposite of putting words your mouth.

I engaged with you fairly, trying to address the issues you raised. You're the one who's resorted to attacking me, calling me names, and acting like a general asshole.

Guess what? That makes you the disingenuous prick.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
If they both get smites again each other, how can could you tell?

The existence of supernatural powers doesn't automatically answer all metaphysical questions. In fact, it probably raises more than it dispels.

In Fantasy Wargaming the various gods were real. But were mana junkies and needed followers. It also had this disconnect where God sends Jews to Hell. The writers were too busy being condescending to actually write a coherent RPG.

In D&D at least if theres various pantheons present in a setting then usually everyones on the same page. Similar to how Marvel used to write Thor. The various gods were more or less welcoming to like minded or like portfoloio'd gods and incresingly less cordial with those furthest from their general demeanors. They were more than capable of working together in a crisis too. Least some were. They also liked to spar when meeting up to. Especially Thor and Hercules.

So at least in D&D theres some congruency. Of course some settings toss all that out the window and either the different pantheons are really the same gods with different names in different regions. Or its every god for themselves and they each might as well be an individual religion rather than a pantheon.

So setting can have some effect on these spells depending on if the spell is targeting something specific or something vague even.

Greek gods don't blow shit up because we keep honoring them in deviant art. Thank the Renaissance for the postponed apocalypse Christoheathen

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 05:04:22 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:55:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
Greek gods weren't, aren't and will never be real. As in something that exists beyond the imagination of their creators/worshippers.

Just Greek gods? How about Norse gods? Hindu? Hebrew? Don't tell me you don't believe in Bob?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
As for Christians vs Muslims, both are monotheistic, both claim the same God, both can't be true, ergo one must be Evil in a world where God IS real.

In that same world any other religion should be Evil, by definition.

But if their worshipers can smite each other, then once again the deeper question of which is reeeeaaaaalllly good and which is reeeeaaaaalllly evil remains subjective, even though at least two objective definitions of good and evil exist in the world.

Stop being disingenuous, YOU brought Greek gods as an example, which is why I talk about them specifically.

Once more, no, it's not subjective, IF the Christians are correct then the Muslims aren't, IF their monotheistic God exists then one of them must be wrong and therefore Evil.

The Devil wouldn't give his followers the ability to smite the followers of God right?

Remember, YOU brought the Christian vs Muslim thing, not me, and yet you'll proceed on your next post to claim it's MY beliefs that prevent me from agreing with your relativistic PO in the Game World.

Alternate scenario: Their god does exist (it doesn't, but just for the same of argument), both worship the same god, but neither of them is evil, just misguided, and their god is too merciful to condemn either side, but also won't intervene because they must learn to figure it out for themselves. And their smite evil ability could still work regardless if it's power works off their faith rather being directly granted by their god (granted, this depends on the world's cosmology and how magic operates in the world).

Just because gods are literally real in the context of the game world that doesn't mean that everything is binary and it has to be either one extreme or the other. Maybe both sides are right and wrong at the same time for different reasons. It might not make sense to us, but the gods work in mysterious ways, etc.

The gods' involvement with the world also vary from setting to setting, or campaign style. The gods could be real, but remote and mysterious--never interfering directly, only through visions and dreams, etc.

Quote from: Omega on April 12, 2021, 05:37:23 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
If they both get smites again each other, how can could you tell?

The existence of supernatural powers doesn't automatically answer all metaphysical questions. In fact, it probably raises more than it dispels.

In Fantasy Wargaming the various gods were real. But were mana junkies and needed followers. It also had this disconnect where God sends Jews to Hell. The writers were too busy being condescending to actually write a coherent RPG.

In D&D at least if theres various pantheons present in a setting then usually everyones on the same page. Similar to how Marvel used to write Thor. The various gods were more or less welcoming to like minded or like portfoloio'd gods and incresingly less cordial with those furthest from their general demeanors. They were more than capable of working together in a crisis too. Least some were. They also liked to spar when meeting up to. Especially Thor and Hercules.

So at least in D&D theres some congruency. Of course some settings toss all that out the window and either the different pantheons are really the same gods with different names in different regions. Or its every god for themselves and they each might as well be an individual religion rather than a pantheon.

So setting can have some effect on these spells depending on if the spell is targeting something specific or something vague even.

One of the more bizarre aspects of D&D is the way it treats good and evil as universal. That there is good, and there is evil, and it applies whether you're Vishnu or Set or Marduk or Hades, and that somehow all the gods from all these different religions all agree on what defines good and evil.

That only works if you erase the substantive spiritual differences between those different religions, and pretend they're all just Western humanists with different numbers of arms, who wear clothes of different styles, and have different fantastic creatures pulling their chariots. Which erases a lot of the point of having different cultures in the first place.

I think the astral realm version works a lot better, where each religion can have a different definition of good and evil, and the spells granted by their gods or from the religion as a whole give that definition objective (super)reality. A priest of Lugh and Amaterasu can cast the same spell, and get different answers.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 12, 2021, 05:46:25 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 05:04:22 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:55:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
Greek gods weren't, aren't and will never be real. As in something that exists beyond the imagination of their creators/worshippers.

Just Greek gods? How about Norse gods? Hindu? Hebrew? Don't tell me you don't believe in Bob?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
As for Christians vs Muslims, both are monotheistic, both claim the same God, both can't be true, ergo one must be Evil in a world where God IS real.

In that same world any other religion should be Evil, by definition.

But if their worshipers can smite each other, then once again the deeper question of which is reeeeaaaaalllly good and which is reeeeaaaaalllly evil remains subjective, even though at least two objective definitions of good and evil exist in the world.

Stop being disingenuous, YOU brought Greek gods as an example, which is why I talk about them specifically.

Once more, no, it's not subjective, IF the Christians are correct then the Muslims aren't, IF their monotheistic God exists then one of them must be wrong and therefore Evil.

The Devil wouldn't give his followers the ability to smite the followers of God right?

Remember, YOU brought the Christian vs Muslim thing, not me, and yet you'll proceed on your next post to claim it's MY beliefs that prevent me from agreing with your relativistic PO in the Game World.

Alternate scenario: Their god does exist (it doesn't, but just for the same of argument), both worship the same god, but neither of them is evil, just misguided, and their god is too merciful to condemn either side, but also won't intervene because they must learn to figure it out for themselves. And their smite evil ability could still work regardless if it's power works off their faith rather being directly granted by their god (granted, this depends on the world's cosmology and how magic operates in the world).

Just because gods are literally real in the context of the game world that doesn't mean that everything is binary and it has to be either one extreme or the other. Maybe both sides are right and wrong at the same time for different reasons. It might not make sense to us, but the gods work in mysterious ways, etc.

The gods' involvement with the world also vary from setting to setting, or campaign style. The gods could be real, but remote and mysterious--never interfering directly, only through visions and dreams, etc.

Maybe gods are just really into specific things and they don't really sweat the details about how you honor those things. You bake a man's bones into a vase to honor the god of pottery? Who cares about the dude, that is a sweet vase.

Quote from: This Guy on April 12, 2021, 05:47:44 PM

Maybe gods are just really into specific things and they don't really sweat the details about how you honor those things. You bake a man's bones into a vase to honor the god of pottery? Who cares about the dude, that is a sweet vase.

People would start testing the limits of what is an acceptable sacrifice and what is not, and figuring out what parts of which religions are just baggage and what really works, and then you'd have a science of religion.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 05:51:05 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 12, 2021, 05:47:44 PM

Maybe gods are just really into specific things and they don't really sweat the details about how you honor those things. You bake a man's bones into a vase to honor the god of pottery? Who cares about the dude, that is a sweet vase.

People would start testing the limits of what is an acceptable sacrifice and what is not, and figuring out what parts of which religions are just baggage and what really works, and then you'd have a science of religion.

On the one hand I really prefer metaphorical mysticism same way I prefer magic-as-metaphor and not magic-as-science. On the other hand sounds pretty awesome.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 05:46:32 PMOne of the more bizarre aspects of D&D is the way it treats good and evil as universal. That there is good, and there is evil, and it applies whether you're Vishnu or Set or Marduk or Hades, and that somehow all the gods from all these different religions all agree on what defines good and evil.

I think this problem cropped up in 2e but may have had its seeds in AD&D.
Originally the idea was that the DM selected ONE of the pantheons presented. But by 2e it was every pantheon. But not. But yes. But what the hell?

Example in Forgotten Realms theres other pantheons but not ones from Earth. While in other settings theres one panthron and nothing else. And in Planescape its every pantheon even ones from Earth. And then one writer will get mixed up and drop some Greek gods into Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or have Selune having a tea party with Paladine. Or some other weirdness.

Spelljammer tossed another wrench in the gears with some gods influence either curbed or non-existent depending on the sphere one was in.

On top of all this now you have in FR gods and then above them the super gods in the form of the primordials and things like aboleths and now hags which apparently predate the gods... and so on.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:51:07 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 12, 2021, 04:50:11 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
So which gods are real, and which aren't?

All Gods are not real except for your God I mean.

What if I believe in all gods at once? Does that mean they're all real?

Thats what you believe.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 12, 2021, 05:46:25 PM
Alternate scenario: Their god does exist (it doesn't, but just for the same of argument), both worship the same god, but neither of them is evil, just misguided, and their god is too merciful to condemn either side, but also won't intervene because they must learn to figure it out for themselves. And their smite evil ability could still work regardless if it's power works off their faith rather being directly granted by their god (granted, this depends on the world's cosmology and how magic operates in the world).

Just because gods are literally real in the context of the game world that doesn't mean that everything is binary and it has to be either one extreme or the other. Maybe both sides are right and wrong at the same time for different reasons. It might not make sense to us, but the gods work in mysterious ways, etc.

The gods' involvement with the world also vary from setting to setting, or campaign style. The gods could be real, but remote and mysterious--never interfering directly, only through visions and dreams, etc.

It could be like in 4e where who was actually smited resolves at the end of the battle.

Greetings!

I think it is more interesting to design different cultures and different religions that are distinct, and define the world and cosmology as they deem appropriate, without particularly referencing a "Western Model" or a universal moral philosophy. Of course, when it comes to morality, there are many aspects that are common, and are relatively universal. That doesn't mean, however, that individual cultures cannot embrace different customs or interpret things in a different manner or context.

For example, in my campaign, I have a barbarian human tribal culture that is Germanic-themed. Their moral codes for society are often harsh, strict, and violent--but they aren't that different from the moral codes embraced by many civilized, urban cultures. This particular northern barbarian culture embraces human sacrifice, however. Every season, they sacrifice a group of slaves to their gods, typically a few dozen, sometimes a few hundred. Beyond that, once per year, they have a ceremony where several hundred slaves or war prisoners are sacrificed to the gods of winter and the forest, to placate the spirits need for blood and their own people's atonement for failures in worship and faith throughout the year. A kind of ritualistic representation of cleansing the old year, and preparing for a new year of faith and devotion to the tribe's gods and the spirits of the land. This barbarian tribe also practices slavery on a small household and farming scale--individuals, usually children or adolescents captured in raids are brought back to the tribe where they serve as slaves, typically to an individual that buys them, or a family that buys them. Enemy warriors captured in war are also enslaved--some are kept imprisoned to be sacrificed later on throughout the year, while most are packed off and sold for handsome profits to slave merchants from more civilized, urban cultures. The profits gained from such slave markets are of course used to enrich the tribal chieftain and nobles, but some of it is also used to spread around as gifts and donations that honor and benefit the whole community.

That northern barbarian tribe are just fine with their gods, their morality, and their ancient tribal customs. Their primary priorities are honoring their own gods, and ensuring the prosperity and glory of their people, of their race and tribe.

They don't give a damn about what foreigners believe or approve of, or don't approve of.

Different cultures and religions should be their own thing, and proud of their ancient ways. There is no need to all jump into a blender and become universalist, happy rainbow jello. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Shasarak on April 12, 2021, 06:36:20 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:51:07 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 12, 2021, 04:50:11 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
So which gods are real, and which aren't?

All Gods are not real except for your God I mean.

What if I believe in all gods at once? Does that mean they're all real?

Thats what you believe.

I roll to disbelieve.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 07:13:26 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 12, 2021, 06:36:20 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:51:07 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 12, 2021, 04:50:11 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
So which gods are real, and which aren't?

All Gods are not real except for your God I mean.

What if I believe in all gods at once? Does that mean they're all real?

Thats what you believe.

I roll to disbelieve.

Players are not allowed to make their own roll to disbelieve.  That would be meta gaming which is strictly verboten.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2021, 02:46:39 PM

And if you do have Evil then anyone that's Evil is a threat, either right now or in the future.

So you have God or gods and Demons, Evil beings worship Demons.

I agree with you that you need Evil to be able to morally kill Evil orcs and goblins with impunity. However, it is possible to have Evil, and have some creatures be always (fixedly) Evil, without insisting that every creature that is currently Evil is irredeemable.

In Catholic theology, for instance, Satan and his Demons are fixedly Evil, and the Angels are fixedly Good. Whereas a human being might currently be Evil (in the service of Satan, say) but still redeemable in the future.

In an RPG, you can have add orcs and goblins to the list of fixedly Evil creatures, but still have humans capable of free will. An Evil human might later become Good through redemptive sacrifice, grace of God, etc., but an Evil orc will never become Good.

Layered on top of that, you can also have subjective or culturally-relative good or evil. And it may be possible that Good and Evil don't concern themselves with small-scale matters which creates grey area for cultures to fight over.

In ACKS, Detect Evil detects innately Evil creatures (demons, undead, etc) plus currently Evil creatures with active ill intent towards you.

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 05:46:32 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 12, 2021, 05:37:23 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
If they both get smites again each other, how can could you tell?

The existence of supernatural powers doesn't automatically answer all metaphysical questions. In fact, it probably raises more than it dispels.

In Fantasy Wargaming the various gods were real. But were mana junkies and needed followers. It also had this disconnect where God sends Jews to Hell. The writers were too busy being condescending to actually write a coherent RPG.

In D&D at least if theres various pantheons present in a setting then usually everyones on the same page. Similar to how Marvel used to write Thor. The various gods were more or less welcoming to like minded or like portfoloio'd gods and incresingly less cordial with those furthest from their general demeanors. They were more than capable of working together in a crisis too. Least some were. They also liked to spar when meeting up to. Especially Thor and Hercules.

So at least in D&D theres some congruency. Of course some settings toss all that out the window and either the different pantheons are really the same gods with different names in different regions. Or its every god for themselves and they each might as well be an individual religion rather than a pantheon.

So setting can have some effect on these spells depending on if the spell is targeting something specific or something vague even.

One of the more bizarre aspects of D&D is the way it treats good and evil as universal. That there is good, and there is evil, and it applies whether you're Vishnu or Set or Marduk or Hades, and that somehow all the gods from all these different religions all agree on what defines good and evil.

That only works if you erase the substantive spiritual differences between those different religions, and pretend they're all just Western humanists with different numbers of arms, who wear clothes of different styles, and have different fantastic creatures pulling their chariots. Which erases a lot of the point of having different cultures in the first place.

I think the astral realm version works a lot better, where each religion can have a different definition of good and evil, and the spells granted by their gods or from the religion as a whole give that definition objective (super)reality. A priest of Lugh and Amaterasu can cast the same spell, and get different answers.

Considering the game was written by western humanists, for gamers in the 20th/21st century, I'm pretty OK with that. If a DM wants to go more in depth about a different morality and spirituality for their campaign's gods, more power to 'em. I think for day to day gaming, most players just want their divine spells granted and a god's name to write down on the religon field of their character sheet.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 12, 2021, 08:19:10 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 05:46:32 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 12, 2021, 05:37:23 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
If they both get smites again each other, how can could you tell?

The existence of supernatural powers doesn't automatically answer all metaphysical questions. In fact, it probably raises more than it dispels.

In Fantasy Wargaming the various gods were real. But were mana junkies and needed followers. It also had this disconnect where God sends Jews to Hell. The writers were too busy being condescending to actually write a coherent RPG.

In D&D at least if theres various pantheons present in a setting then usually everyones on the same page. Similar to how Marvel used to write Thor. The various gods were more or less welcoming to like minded or like portfoloio'd gods and incresingly less cordial with those furthest from their general demeanors. They were more than capable of working together in a crisis too. Least some were. They also liked to spar when meeting up to. Especially Thor and Hercules.

So at least in D&D theres some congruency. Of course some settings toss all that out the window and either the different pantheons are really the same gods with different names in different regions. Or its every god for themselves and they each might as well be an individual religion rather than a pantheon.

So setting can have some effect on these spells depending on if the spell is targeting something specific or something vague even.

One of the more bizarre aspects of D&D is the way it treats good and evil as universal. That there is good, and there is evil, and it applies whether you're Vishnu or Set or Marduk or Hades, and that somehow all the gods from all these different religions all agree on what defines good and evil.

That only works if you erase the substantive spiritual differences between those different religions, and pretend they're all just Western humanists with different numbers of arms, who wear clothes of different styles, and have different fantastic creatures pulling their chariots. Which erases a lot of the point of having different cultures in the first place.

I think the astral realm version works a lot better, where each religion can have a different definition of good and evil, and the spells granted by their gods or from the religion as a whole give that definition objective (super)reality. A priest of Lugh and Amaterasu can cast the same spell, and get different answers.

Considering the game was written by western humanists, for gamers in the 20th/21st century, I'm pretty OK with that. If a DM wants to go more in depth about a different morality and spirituality for their campaign's gods, more power to 'em. I think for day to day gaming, most players just want their divine spells granted and a god's name to write down on the religon field of their character sheet.

Greetings!

Excellent point, Ratman!

In my games, I occasionally have a player or two that likes to learn about different campaign religions and cultures--and sometimes they enjoy getting into deep, philosophical discussions with other players about this kind of stuff.

Most of the time though--with most players--it amounts to, asking "Are they considered enemies of my kingdom or my religion?"

*Wizard or Cleric prepares Fireball or Flamestrike*

"Yes, they are considered to be filthy Pagans and enemies of the realm!"

*Whoom!* Fireball explodes, leaving the enemy laying about, burning and moaning.

Wizard or Cleric says, "Ok, the enemy has suffered a taste of judgement. Make sure none of them survives. Kill them all. Let's loot them good, and move on, brothers!"

The group then loots all the bodies carefully, while then providing a quick death to any struggling survivors, before proceeding deeper into the dungeon, where savage monsters lurk.

That's about as deep into "Morality" as a lot of players get. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 12, 2021, 08:19:10 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 05:46:32 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 12, 2021, 05:37:23 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
If they both get smites again each other, how can could you tell?

The existence of supernatural powers doesn't automatically answer all metaphysical questions. In fact, it probably raises more than it dispels.

In Fantasy Wargaming the various gods were real. But were mana junkies and needed followers. It also had this disconnect where God sends Jews to Hell. The writers were too busy being condescending to actually write a coherent RPG.

In D&D at least if theres various pantheons present in a setting then usually everyones on the same page. Similar to how Marvel used to write Thor. The various gods were more or less welcoming to like minded or like portfoloio'd gods and incresingly less cordial with those furthest from their general demeanors. They were more than capable of working together in a crisis too. Least some were. They also liked to spar when meeting up to. Especially Thor and Hercules.

So at least in D&D theres some congruency. Of course some settings toss all that out the window and either the different pantheons are really the same gods with different names in different regions. Or its every god for themselves and they each might as well be an individual religion rather than a pantheon.

So setting can have some effect on these spells depending on if the spell is targeting something specific or something vague even.

One of the more bizarre aspects of D&D is the way it treats good and evil as universal. That there is good, and there is evil, and it applies whether you're Vishnu or Set or Marduk or Hades, and that somehow all the gods from all these different religions all agree on what defines good and evil.

That only works if you erase the substantive spiritual differences between those different religions, and pretend they're all just Western humanists with different numbers of arms, who wear clothes of different styles, and have different fantastic creatures pulling their chariots. Which erases a lot of the point of having different cultures in the first place.

I think the astral realm version works a lot better, where each religion can have a different definition of good and evil, and the spells granted by their gods or from the religion as a whole give that definition objective (super)reality. A priest of Lugh and Amaterasu can cast the same spell, and get different answers.

Considering the game was written by western humanists, for gamers in the 20th/21st century, I'm pretty OK with that. If a DM wants to go more in depth about a different morality and spirituality for their campaign's gods, more power to 'em. I think for day to day gaming, most players just want their divine spells granted and a god's name to write down on the religon field of their character sheet.

In which case, you might as well stick to a single pantheon. I'd go with Crom, Thor, Loki, Hercules, Mithras, Ishtar, Kali, Tiamat, Boccob, and Thomas Paine.

But if you want Asgard, Olympus, and Mechanus, it helps to allow religions from different cultures to espouse different beliefs.

Quote from: SHARK on April 12, 2021, 08:33:17 PM
In my games, I occasionally have a player or two that likes to learn about different campaign religions and cultures--and sometimes they enjoy getting into deep, philosophical discussions with other players about this kind of stuff.

Most of the time though--with most players--it amounts to, asking "Are they considered enemies of my kingdom or my religion?"

*Wizard or Cleric prepares Fireball or Flamestrike*

"Yes, they are considered to be filthy Pagans and enemies of the realm!"

*Whoom!* Fireball explodes, leaving the enemy laying about, burning and moaning.

Wizard or Cleric says, "Ok, the enemy has suffered a taste of judgement. Make sure none of them survives. Kill them all. Let's loot them good, and move on, brothers!"

The group then loots all the bodies carefully, while then providing a quick death to any struggling survivors, before proceeding deeper into the dungeon, where savage monsters lurk.

That's about as deep into "Morality" as a lot of players get. ;D

If this is the depth of morality, though, then a codified alignment system is unnecessary. I've run plenty of pulp action, superhero, and fantasy games without having an alignment system. If the players don't care - why have a bunch of rules over it? You can just say "they're bad guys" instead of "they're of evil alignment".

As others have said before, it seems like alignment (and especially AD&D alignment) creates more questions than it answers.

Quote from: Omega on April 12, 2021, 05:20:05 PM

Quote from: estar on April 12, 2021, 01:25:34 PM
However that may be, the description of the spell in OD&D makes it relative to the caster. In later editions people did not focus on that which makes Detect Evil and elaborate "danger sense" for a couple of minutes. Instead they focused on the name of the spells and took it way too literally.

See my notes above on each iterations idea of this spell.
Of them only a few actually detect evil/good.
O is intent.
BX is intent
AD&D is alignment not the casters.
2e is intent
3e is alignment with chance of being shocked by hither level creatures.
nothing for 4e
5e is the most misnamed spell ever as this "detect" instead detects non prime material creatures. Alignment has nothing to do with it or even intent.

So 3 go off intent. 2 off alignment in some way, and one hies off and detects other planars.

Appreciate the summary.

Or the reality is that both Christians and Muslims are indeed worshipping the same god but both garbled the message or is mistaking culture specifics for religious truth. That while the insight to smite is divinely inspired the power is an inherent part of the world like fire or electricity. Thus it use is subject to human free will the same as a rock or a club or in a later age a chemically propelled projectile. And the day both combatant arrived in front of the throne God will look at them both "You both missed the point of what I was teaching and thus the two of you sinned."

What matters is that is to start from first principles and work forward. If you want to dive deeper into why thing are what they are. Even then as far practical nuts and bolts of running a RPG campaign it only matters if it impact the roleplaying whether it of a PC or a NPC. I have a box full of notes filled with stuff I used and stuff I wrote for my own interest. When it came time to write the Majestic Wilderlands Supplement and my other books what I focused on are the think that impact behavior of character. That informed the reader of why folks act the way they do in my settings.

As folks saw earlier I have a specific mythology that surrounds the religious cultures of my setting. But I have created other that I haven't shared or published. One of them is eluded too in the first paragraph of this response. In a world of myriad religions what if instead of considering one true and the rest the work of a divine antagonist. Perhaps they are the result of a voice filtered through culture and time manifesting in different ways in different places. That the antagonist to God does most of its work not in creating competing religions out of whole cloth but rather attempts to distorts the word of God whenever and however it appears throughout the work. Thus producing the muddled mess that is religion throughout human history.

Or maybe the Gnostic got it right and the world is evil and we are just all pure souls trapped within the world and struggling to free ourselves in order to join the divine.

For the purpose of a RPG campaign we can engage in a variety of different thought experiments and create setting around them. While the implementations are different the process is similar. Figure out the premise, reason out the consequences, figure out how it impact how characters are roleplayed (NPC or PC).

The real problem is the way the spell is named and how about every other edition wants to change what that means from detect any evil intent, to detect all or secondary alignment, to somesuch.

O B and 2e have the best whole 5e has hands down the worst.

At the end of the day though its your campaign and pantheon and handle it however you want. There is no right or wrong way as long as its consistent and is not open to abuse.

In one campaign for BX I hit on a novel counter to a sort of bounty hunter who was using the reverse of detect evil to try and ferret out the party at a large inn. From the cleric in the group we had an idea how the spell worked and knew we might flub trying to "fake it". So I used sleep spells from a wand we had found to put everyone asleep leaving just me to "think really bad thoughts"... ahem.

Quote from: Omega on April 13, 2021, 02:33:51 PM
The real problem is the way the spell is named

The real problem is the way that the spell Detect Evil does not allow you to Detect Evil.

Quote from: Shasarak on April 13, 2021, 04:48:31 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 13, 2021, 02:33:51 PM
The real problem is the way the spell is named

The real problem is the way that the spell Detect Evil does not allow you to Detect Evil.

Or maybe it does. Maybe that's the real, objective definition of evil and all this stuff about orc babies is just a smokescreen.

Quote from: Pat on April 13, 2021, 06:02:46 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 13, 2021, 04:48:31 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 13, 2021, 02:33:51 PM
The real problem is the way the spell is named

The real problem is the way that the spell Detect Evil does not allow you to Detect Evil.

Or maybe it does. Maybe that's the real, objective definition of evil and all this stuff about orc babies is just a smokescreen.

What if the orc baby has evil intent, tho?  :o

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 13, 2021, 07:31:37 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 13, 2021, 06:02:46 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 13, 2021, 04:48:31 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 13, 2021, 02:33:51 PM
The real problem is the way the spell is named

The real problem is the way that the spell Detect Evil does not allow you to Detect Evil.

Or maybe it does. Maybe that's the real, objective definition of evil and all this stuff about orc babies is just a smokescreen.

What if the orc baby has evil intent, tho?  :o

Needing a diaper changed is a clear example of hostile intent...

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows ..."