A paladin's Detect Evil vs. an illusion


Rules Questions


OK, my fellow GM is a twisted, devious fellow, and came up with this argument. I'd like to see what the RAW folk say about it.

FACT 1: Illusions have no alignment. If I use Detect Evil on a Silent Image, it's not going to detect as evil.

FACT 2: A paladin's Detect Evil is targeted at a single creature or object. From the PRD: A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range.

So here's my friend's argument: An illusory disguise spell such as Veil completely envelops the disguised entity. Therefore, a paladin concentrating on that individual would be focusing on the illusion, not the person, and would therefore not detect evil, even if the person was indeed evil.

It came up in the game he's running because our paladin tried to Detect Evil on a Veiled Glabrezu demon.

Opinions? Rulings? Arguments?

EDIT: It became moot because the demon hid behind a wall, blocking the spell, and the paladin didn't try again, but Glabrezu demons show up a remarkable amount in our campaigns (what can we say? The APs love treachery) so I'm interested in hearing people's opinions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Detection spells are only blocked by what they say they are blocked by - which is 1 inch of metal, 1 foot of stone, or 3 feet of wood or dirt.

Also, the paladin can use the standard detect evil spell, not just the move action single-target quick study - and saying that he could detect the presence of evil while using the normal version (while not focusing on the illusion) but would "loose the signal" by focusing on the illusion-veiled glabrezu is pretty much the jankiest idea I have heard lately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have you ever heard the term Paladar? Without facing, the paladin can use that thing as a radar until something pings.

Example 1. There is an evil creature inside a house made out of wood roughly 40 feet from Paladar. When Paladar focuses in that direction, s/he will get a ping. It doesn't matter that there is 4 inches of wood, some furniture, and a table between Paladar and the evil thing.

Example 2. An illusion itself is of no alignment. However, if there is an evil target behind the illusion - it will ping the Paladar.

Example 3. A Paladar roams a town of common folk killing the statistical 1/3rd of the population that is evil. The town contract out work to the capital's elite guard to come to this town and save it from the Evil Paladar who is slaughtering the innocent townsfolk.

Yes, the Paladar will see the evil. However, if the illusion is of an innocent townsfolk and the Paladar attacks it, then there may soon be a bounty on Paladar's head.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mapleswitch wrote:
Example 3. A Paladar roams a town of common folk killing the statistical 1/3rd of the population that is evil.

That issue has been solved - normal people (meaning not of a divine class and not undead) that happen to be evil don't have an aura at all unless they are at least 5th level, which "common folk" certainly aren't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
An illusory disguise spell such as Veil completely envelops the disguised entity.

No it doesn't. It's not an Abjuration or an Evocation. Those spell schools might create some sort of holographic shields. But not so Illusion: Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. So there's no envelopment, just deception.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
VRMH wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
An illusory disguise spell such as Veil completely envelops the disguised entity.
No it doesn't. It's not an Abjuration or an Evocation. Those spell schools might create some sort of holographic shields. But not so Illusion: Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. So there's no envelopment, just deception.

That is the best, most fundamental response so far.

An illusion is not an object; therefore the argument fails.

Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VRMH wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
An illusory disguise spell such as Veil completely envelops the disguised entity.
No it doesn't. It's not an Abjuration or an Evocation. Those spell schools might create some sort of holographic shields. But not so Illusion: Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. So there's no envelopment, just deception.

Not quite:

PRD wrote:
A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

So that's functionally relatively close to "enveloping". A glamer can indeed conceal a subject. Consider misdirection, which can in fact conceal a subject's alignment, and note that it is also a glamer.

That said, veil says nothing about concealing alignment, and does say what other things it conceals, so I think that's pretty definitive anyway.


If the Glabrezu Demon had access to Veil then why not also Undetectable Alignment? Surely he could have enslaved a bard or antipaladin to cast it on him everyday.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The illusion will not hide the creatures alignment. He is detecting evil on the creature, even though the paladin thinks the creature is one thing, his detect evil power is not fooled because no hide alignment spell is in effect. These scenarios are quite common in the life of a paladin and are tools often used to test him. If he comes across an innocent looking boy and he detects as evil, the paladin might have cause for suspicion and vice-versa for evil looking things that don't detect as evil.

The way this would play out is

"Paladin: I detect evil on said creature."

"GM: Said creature detects as evil."

"Paladin: Really? Huh..odd..it looks like an elderly elven woman..surely she can't cause us any harm..still, this is quite strange...hmm..."

etc, etc, etc.

Detect evil(along with smite evil) are incredibly powerful, god bestowed abilities given to a mortal being. They are amazingly powerful tools but must he used wisely and correctly else the user fall victim to it's own power/abilities.

Paladins be jedi-ing it up, yo.


Veil specifically would not hide auras. Veil changes the look, feel and smell of the targets. It does not change the alignment. A paladin senses the alignment of the targets.

This is a bad ruling for Veil. I think it's bad that a level 6 spell could be so easily foiled by a level 1 spell but it is what it is. However, were this deception devised by a creature with sufficient Knowledge Religion he should know that his aura is still exposed and it is reasonable to suspect he would add Undetectable Alignment to his ruse.

It makes sense within the game's spell paradigm. Alignments, Detecting Alignments and hiding Alignments are in the purview of know religion and divine spells. Illusions are arcane, so by virtue of that fact it makes more sense that Detect Alignment can bypass and reveal aspect of Veiled creatures.

My follow up question would be this: if a lich glamoured himself via an illusion spell to look like a nonundead creature does he still ping undead when detect undead is cast?


The GM should have just given the demon a magic item or spell to hide the creature's alignment. The veil spell does not hide alignment--the spell does specifically what it says it does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Better question: If a PC glamered herself to look like a lich, would she ping as undead?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aside from the issue of whether that particular spell blocks the aura (which, again, it shouldn't), this is exactly the sort of situation detect evil is meant to be used in. Something seems fishy to you, you activate supernatural senses to try and confirm your suspicions. It's not cool in my book to throw wards against aura-reading things up on villains unless they are specifically aware of the possibility that someone is going to be looking.

Of course, said book also involves the assumption that paladins aren't going to be using detect evil on every single person they meet as a matter of course. It's just kinda rude to be staring into everyone's soul when you first meet them, and if you make yourself a reputation as someone who does that, then yeah, demons are going to start warding accordingly.


blahpers wrote:
Better question: If a PC glamered herself to look like a lich, would she ping as undead?

Spells don't block detection spells unless they say they do.


thenobledrake wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Better question: If a PC glamered herself to look like a lich, would she ping as undead?
Spells don't block detection spells unless they say they do.

Exactly.


Mapleswitch wrote:

Have you ever heard the term Paladar? Without facing, the paladin can use that thing as a radar until something pings.

Example 1. There is an evil creature inside a house made out of wood roughly 40 feet from Paladar. When Paladar focuses in that direction, s/he will get a ping. It doesn't matter that there is 4 inches of wood, some furniture, and a table between Paladar and the evil thing.

Example 2. An illusion itself is of no alignment. However, if there is an evil target behind the illusion - it will ping the Paladar.

Example 3. A Paladar roams a town of common folk killing the statistical 1/3rd of the population that is evil. The town contract out work to the capital's elite guard to come to this town and save it from the Evil Paladar who is slaughtering the innocent townsfolk.

Example 1 and 3 are wholly wrong. The paladin detect evil class ability is blocked by anything that stops line of sight or effect if they cannot see it they. Cannot deyect it.

To the op the spells or illusions do what they say they do. If the evil demon is disguised as a small boy he is no safer from detect evil than he is any other targetable spell or effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not true. "If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location."

You wouldn't know exactly where in the house the evil creature was, but you would know that it exists, the strength of its aura, and that is is somewhere within the 60', 90° cone you are detecting in.

The third example on that list would not work however because A- Any citizen in this town who is not a cleric, antipaladin, undead, or at least level 5 has no evil aura, regardless of their alignment, and B- Anyone who is capable of contemplating this course of action is not coming close to meeting the alignment requirements to be a paladin. An antipaladin looking for good people would only be stymied by A... but would probably be better off just killing indiscriminately in the first place.

Not that any of this really matters with regards to the original issue, because the GM's excuse was that it was the single target detect, not the as-the-spell cone.


Mapleswitch wrote:
Have you ever heard the term Paladar? Without facing, the paladin can use that thing as a radar until something pings.

That's not quite right as per the rules.

Facing is irrelevant, the spell has a cone shaped emanation. As a spell-like ability it requires a standard action to trigger and then according to the spell can only be turned to cover a different area once per round. Cover normally applies against an emanation type effect, however detect evil specifically bypasses this in the description. It does however get blocked by materials of the appropriate density which can block line of effect without any facing rules within the game.

Some GM discretion would be necessary as to whether multiple objects adding up to the correct density would be effective or if it requires a single homogenous intervening object. This isn't explicitly supported one way or another in the rules.


Sigh. When we are talking paladins and detect evil there is no cone. The class ability requires you target a creature or object. If he is just casting detect evil the fact that he is a paladin is irrelivant.

Using the house example he can't target the person to concentrate on them. I repeat there is no cone.


Mojorat wrote:
Sigh. When we are talking paladins and detect evil there is no cone. The class ability requires you target a creature or object.

Yes, the ambiguous rules in the paladin class description are well worth sighing over.

"At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell." seems clear enough on an ability marked as spell-like.

Until you add the subsequent paragraph which "clarifies" this by describing something completely different from the spell.

Your interpretation and understanding of the rules is quite different from mine, which is obviously rather a problem when we're talking about a starting ability for a core class.

Is there perhaps some errata or clarification you're referring to that I might have missed? That would be handy. I'd appreciate if you could give me a reference for it.


I don't see the ambiguity at all. How many ways can concentrate on one creature or object be interpeted?it works like detect evil but is a move action and single target and the paladin knows right away if the target is evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Detect Evil (Sp): At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on
a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range.

Okay. Seriously.

Standard action: cast spell-like ability, as the spell detect evil. Designate cone direction to include suspected target. Result: positive. There is an evil aura within the cone and that aura is not physically blocked by lead etc.

Move action: concentrate on a the illusion to determine if it is evil or not. Result: negative. The designated single entity is not real and therefore is not evil.

That's how a paladin's detect evil works. That's how it works in this case. That's how it works, period. End result is the paladin now knows something is awry; there's evil in the cone but the illusion isn't it. Food for thought for our holy warrior. Maybe... it's an illusion and there's an invisible evil guy somewhere in the cone?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mojorat wrote:
I don't see the ambiguity at all. How many ways can concentrate on one creature or object be interpeted?it works like detect evil but is a move action and single target and the paladin knows right away if the target is evil.

Reading it again, it looks like that Paladin can do both versions.

"At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range."

That last sentence implies the usage of both versions. "A paladin can use detect evil, as the spell." The spell states cone.

The next sentence begins with "A paladin can.." which implies that he doesn't have to do it this way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mojorat wrote:
I don't see the ambiguity at all. How many ways can concentrate on one creature or object be interpeted?it works like detect evil but is a move action and single target and the paladin knows right away if the target is evil.

I don't see the ambiguity either.

"At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell."

Note the period.

THEN the second sentence starts.

"A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range."

The second and third sentences do not invalidate the first. He "can" (i.e. is capable of doing) do something does not mean he is suddenly incapable of doing what the first sentence says (Can use Detect Evil AS THE SPELL).


I am pretty sure that is two different abilities; one is that they can use the spell, which has a standard action casting time, then a duration of concentration, and so on. The other is that they can, as a move action, determine whether a single thing is evil as if they had concentrated on it for three rounds. So they can do either, but not both at once.


Actually I feel silly now. I never cought the seperate parsing there between the first and second line and I'm normally good for that.


Mojorat wrote:
I don't see the ambiguity at all. How many ways can concentrate on one creature or object be interpeted?it works like detect evil but is a move action and single target and the paladin knows right away if the target is evil.

The trouble here is whether that second clause is restrictive or expansive.

The first time I read the Pathfinder version of the ability, I thought "okay, so the Paladin can cast detect evil, and he can also choose to focus on a single creature as a move action for the third-round info. Neat."

Clearly you think it is restrictive, and that it works as detect evil with the exception that it may only be used as a focused effect. I cannot say that you are wrong, but this is honestly the first time I have come across this interpretation anywhere.

Between the two interpretations, I still favor the additive version simply because the second sentence does not have any kind of restrictive wording such that the Paladin must focus as a move action. However, I could also appreciate that people might enjoy running the game that way, as it would put a little bit of thought back into the game instead of walking around with detect evil up 24/7 to guarantee detection of absolutely every 5 HD evil creature.


EDIT: Sorry, was writing this while you responded. Didn't see what you'd already written.

Mojorat wrote:
I don't see the ambiguity at all.

Then perhaps you should ask yourself why you're encountering a specific misinterpretation so frequently that you're sighing as you express it?

"At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell."

Exact quote from the book.

This sentence, on its own can be clearly interpreted as "gain the spell detect evil as an at will spell-like ability".

The following sentences...

"A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range."

...modify how the spell works by granting the paladin the additional ability to more rapidly detect and determine auras on a single creature or object by focusing on them but at the cost of no longer detecting evil on everything else within the range.

Your interpretation doesn't explain the existence of this sentence "While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range." Which would only be necessary if the paladin was also detecting evil as per the spell.


Mojorat wrote:
Actually I feel silly now. I never cought the seperate parsing there between the first and second line and I'm normally good for that.

I wouldn't worry about it, I had to read the class ability and the spell description about twenty times to figure out what they were saying with that one. That's one confusing description.

Silver Crusade

Anguish wrote:
Move action: concentrate on a the illusion to determine if it is evil or not. Result: negative. The designated single entity is not real and therefore is not evil.
Quote:
A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds.

The pally targets 'That creature', pointing to the mini on the square grid. If there is a creature in there, any evil aura on it gets detected. Illusions on the creature are not relevant.

If there is no creature in that square (it's 'just' an illusion) then there is no viable target for detect evil, as illusions are neither objects nor individuals.


Anguish wrote:
Move action: concentrate on a the illusion to determine if it is evil or not. Result: negative. The designated single entity is not real and therefore is not evil.

The problem with this interpretation is that you are not saying "Is that illusion evil?" but rather "Is that creature - which I am not aware is disguised via illusion magic which does not specifically say it prevents others from detecting its alignment - evil?"

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / A paladin's Detect Evil vs. an illusion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.