SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Detect Evil

Started by Ratman_tf, April 06, 2021, 07:39:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ratman_tf

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.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

This Guy

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.
I don\'t want to play with you.

VisionStorm

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.

Pat

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.

Ratman_tf

#64
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.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Renegade_Productions

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.

Shasarak

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.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Trinculoisdead

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.

HappyDaze

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.

VisionStorm

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).

VisionStorm

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.

Visitor Q

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.

Omega

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.

Omega

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.

Pat

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.)