Detect Evil or Detect Malevolence?


Combat & Magic

Liberty's Edge

I would like to see Paizo take the Detect spells and the Protection spells and move them away from alignment. Instead, regardless the alignment of the attacker, if the person is malevolent, I would prefer that detection offer that knowledge . . . as with protection.


I really don't want to move away from alignment based effects. It lessens the impact of creatures like demons, devils, and angels.

I would like to see more use of (or notes about) what detect evil detects. For example, I've rarely read adventures that note if an area would show up as having "lingering evil" due to an overwhelming evil being in the area, or even a reminder that someone using detect evil on overwhelming evil will get stunned for detecting it.

It would be hard to model that effect with "detect malevolence." In fact, if you tried, it would be kind of counter productive, because the more someone wanted to do you harm, the more likely you would be to get stunned.

Liberty's Edge

What you say makes sense. I just find carrying around a score of detect and protect spells (or having to learn each one separately) is cumbersome.

Maybe a detect alignment instead of a detect evil?

But I still think Protection from Malevolence could work.

Otherwise, if you learn Detect - you learn it for all alignments and then you can assign which alignment you're seeking to detect. Similarly, your Protection spell applies to all alignments. When you cast, you discern what alignment your seeking protection against.


About the detect spells, I would make them:

Detect Morale (Good AND Evil)
Detect Ethic (Law AND Chaos)
(Crappy names I now)

I imagine those as a change in sight (like infrared vision) where the caster (or the Paladin!) percieves the world in different shades indicating good and evil (or law and chaos) around him (like a spectrum from white to purple-black)


Oooh tangent! I could look kinda like using the Scry spell in Clive Barker's Undying! You could see the underlying nastiness in the person (or object or terrain) visually! Normally, well, normal looking people could like like blood soaked, sunken eyed, sharp toothed monsters under detect evil, or radiant, beautiful icons under detect good. Similar possibilities for law and chaos. A really lawful thing could look like it was made of perfect angles and symmetry, while a chaotic thing could look like a Salvador Dali painting.

Hmmmm, I like!


Personally, I don't have too much of a problem with detect/protect alignment, but my problem is: why do you have to be of a specific alignment to cast these spells? Do you mean to tell me that I can't be an evil sorcerer and summon the devil into a warding circle because the only warding circles I can lay are ones that keep out good creatures? Protection from alignments and magic circles and all that stuff should lose their alignment subtypes.

Dark Archive

wizards and sorcerers don't have to worry about alignment sub-types


David Wickham wrote:
wizards and sorcerers don't have to worry about alignment sub-types

Sorry, "sorcerer" as in "one who summons demons", not as in "the name of a character class".

Dark Archive

ahh...

though the god of sloth would probably never get around to revoking your caster privelages (if it ever did grant you some in the first place)


David Wickham wrote:

ahh...

though the god of sloth would probably never get around to revoking your caster privelages (if it ever did grant you some in the first place)

Dude, the prophets of the god of sloth sit there in perpetual meditation because they've been on hold for like an eon but the "voices of the angels" keep telling them that they'll "be in the presence of their lord in the order they began prayer".

Liberty's Edge

Pneumonica wrote:
Personally, I don't have too much of a problem with detect/protect alignment, but my problem is: why do you have to be of a specific alignment to cast these spells? Do you mean to tell me that I can't be an evil sorcerer and summon the devil into a warding circle because the only warding circles I can lay are ones that keep out good creatures? Protection from alignments and magic circles and all that stuff should lose their alignment subtypes.

An easy way for Paizo to address this could be two-fold - Detect Alignment and Protection from Alignment. When you cast the spell, you designate what alignment you are seeking to detect or be protected from. Two spells instead of eight. ... And no alignment restrictions.


Saurstalk wrote:
An easy way for Paizo to address this could be two-fold - Detect Alignment and Protection from Alignment. When you cast the spell, you designate what alignment you are seeking to detect or be protected from. Two spells instead of eight. ... And no alignment restrictions.

I really hope they do it that way.

Verdant Wheel

On that matter, shouldn't the paladin be capable of detecting chaos ? Why they hunt more the evil-doer than the law-breaker ?


Draco Bahamut wrote:
On that matter, shouldn't the paladin be capable of detecting chaos ? Why they hunt more the evil-doer than the law-breaker ?

That's the question. Why do they only get Smite Evil, but not Smite Chaos?


I always saw it as an inherent superiority of good over law, that law serves the common good, but that law is merely a tool, and not an end in and of itself.

Liberty's Edge

Saurstalk wrote:
I would like to see Paizo take the Detect spells and the Protection spells and move them away from alignment. Instead, regardless the alignment of the attacker, if the person is malevolent, I would prefer that detection offer that knowledge . . . as with protection.

I should read the rest of the posts before posting myself, but what the hay! I like the fact that my players might cast Detect Evil and get a false reading. It's a dynamic that became popular in v3.5 that I plan to keep around--no Detect Intent spells for my group.

Liberty's Edge

Draco Bahamut wrote:
On that matter, shouldn't the paladin be capable of detecting chaos ? Why they hunt more the evil-doer than the law-breaker ?

Philosophically, I'd argue that paladins only quest for evil because in a fantasy world where there truly are factions of pure evil and pure good, evil is always unalterable, while in contrast the chaotic guy can be changed and redeemed.

Liberty's Edge

DracoDruid wrote:
Draco Bahamut wrote:
On that matter, shouldn't the paladin be capable of detecting chaos ? Why they hunt more the evil-doer than the law-breaker ?
That's the question. Why do they only get Smite Evil, but not Smite Chaos?

Because good is the end and law is the means, not the other way 'round. Your average paladin has no problem whatsoever with Eladrin, for instance. If you want a character that just hunts down lawbreakers, why not play a Hellknight? It's not like they aren't cool enough!


Timespike wrote:
Because good is the end (goal) and law is the means (way).

(Parenthesis added by myself)

DAMN good distinction! Great. I really like it.

Only for those strange LN/CN guys the journey is the reward.

Verdant Wheel

This is just weird, chaos strive to disrupt order, destroy the society the civilization took so long to build and challenge the mandate of heavens that allow the good rulers to rule. The conflict law vs chaos is as dangerous as good vs evil.
Terrorists are chaotic for example, a paladin crusade against Terror would be a failure, as they are powerless against chaotic foes.


Terrorists are chaotic EVIL. Only because you're chaotic, you don't automatically want to destroy society. Sure, they won't obey the laws and orders of a king or other ruler only because he is the "chef". Only if they go in line with their own interests.

Take chaotic good people f.e. They are fighting evil too, but especially in the form of tyranny (lawful evil) and over-ruled/restrictive states (Lawful neutral).

Verdant Wheel

Terrorists aren´t evil. Barbarian making mob rages inside lawful evil cities are terrorists for me. Maybe they can´t be chaotic good, but they are doing it because of high insatisfaction with the current world order and not because the devil said them to do so.
The methods they use is what make them chaotic (inside their heads they even are going to heaven), they don´t work with the system, they try to destroy it with as many explosions and destruction as they can (maybe they are PCs). To me, evil terrorists would be the ones that kill thounsands only for the thrill of it, and not because they believe they are protecting their future (which make them crazy, so Chaotic Neutral).

Liberty's Edge

Draco Bahamut wrote:

Terrorists aren´t evil. Barbarian making mob rages inside lawful evil cities are terrorists for me. Maybe they can´t be chaotic good, but they are doing it because of high insatisfaction with the current world order and not because the devil said them to do so.

The methods they use is what make them chaotic (inside their heads they even are going to heaven), they don´t work with the system, they try to destroy it with as many explosions and destruction as they can (maybe they are PCs). To me, evil terrorists would be the ones that kill thounsands only for the thrill of it, and not because they believe they are protecting their future (which make them crazy, so Chaotic Neutral).

Then (I hope) you're using a different definition of terrorism than me. Terrorism is, pretty much by definition, the slaughter of innocents or occasionally the (very genuine!) threat of the slaughter of innocents to make your point. There is no way that is not evil. Sabotage, inciting riots, etc. aren't terrorism, per se. Slaughtering innocent people deliberately (as opposed to accidentally or even negligently) fits the very definition of evil is as clear-cut a way as one could ever hope to come up with.

A wizard who firebals an enemy, aims poorly and ends up catching an innocent in the blast isn't evil, just fallible. One that fires that same fireball into a packed marketplace full of innocent people because he doesn't like their king is evil in the extreme.

It's also worth noting that my most successful campaign to date used some particularly vicious necromantic terrorists as bad guys. They make great villains.

Verdant Wheel

Well, maybe you are right. We are using different definitions. I don´t understand much about terrorism as we have another types of threats around here, but as i see, the motivation of terrorism is still a political issue, so in essence they are breaking the law, as i really believe they are not doing it because they are enjoying it, but because they think there is no other way.
Do not take me wrong, terrorists can be evil, but just like professional assassins, they can be neutral; i am trying to be realistic here, being "evil" in the real world is a bit far-fetched.
I believe default terrorists want to promote chaos in a society, and in chaos people die and that what i wanted to mean in my original argument that everyone seems to think chaotic good - or chaotic neutral - can´t be a danger to society worth to be combated by a paladin, i don´t think so, because they are people who reject society, civilization. They don´t follow the law or even believe in it, they aren´t just loners, they are people fully capable of reasoning that collateral damage is not their problem.
A CG cleric of the strength god can believe weak people are worthless to be saved first, and this behavior can kill innocent people too. So they could believe that the lawful kingdom is weak and worth of being conquered, in a war innocent people die. What the paladins will do against such enemies ?

Liberty's Edge

Seeing that Paizo will most likely not drift from the 3.5 designation of alignments (as opposed to the grey that people are discussing), here's my suggestion on how the spells could still be streamlined:

DETECT ALIGNMENT
Divination
Level: Clr 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 60 ft.
Area: Cone-shaped emanation
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 min./ level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
You can sense the presence of whatever alignment you assign to the spell upon casting, be it chaos, evil, good, or law. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.

1st Round: Presence or absence of the chosen alignment.

2nd Round: Number of auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the power of the most potent aura present of that alignment.

If you are of opposing alignment to that being detected, and the strongest aura’s power is overwhelming (see below), and the HD or level of the aura’s source is at least twice your character level, you are stunned for 1 round and the spell ends.

3rd Round: The power and location of each aura. If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location.

Aura Power: An aura’s power depends on the type of creature or object that you’re detecting and its HD, caster level, or (in the case of a cleric) class level; see TABLE. If an aura falls into more than one strength category, the spell indicates the stronger of the two.

Lingering Aura: An aura lingers after its original source dissipates (in the case of a spell) or is destroyed (in the case of a creature or magic item). If detect alignment is cast and directed at such a location it is intended to detect, the spell indicates an aura strength of dim (even weaker than a faint aura). How long the aura lingers at this dim level depends on its original power.

Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not aligned (but for neutral), and as such this spell does not detect them.

Each round, you can turn to detect into a new area. The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.

PROTECTION FROM ALIGNMENT
Abjuration
Level: Clr 1, Good 1, Pal 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: No; see text
This spell wards a creature from attacks by creatures of the intended alignment upon casting of the spell, including from mental control, and from summoned creatures. It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot. The barrier moves with the subject and has three major effects.

First, the subject gains a +2 deflection bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus on saves. Both these bonuses apply against attacks made or effects created by creatures of the selected alignment.

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person). The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection effect. If the protection effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature. Likewise, the barrier keeps out a possessing life force but does not expel one if it is in place before the spell is cast.

Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Summoned creatures not of the pre-designated alignment are immune to this effect. The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature. Spell resistance can allow a creature to overcome this protection and touch the warded creature.

Arcane Material Component: A little powdered silver with which you trace a 3-foot -diameter circle on the floor (or ground) around the creature to be warded.

Liberty's Edge

Draco Bahamut wrote:

Well, maybe you are right. We are using different definitions. I don´t understand much about terrorism as we have another types of threats around here, but as i see, the motivation of terrorism is still a political issue, so in essence they are breaking the law, as i really believe they are not doing it because they are enjoying it, but because they think there is no other way.

Do not take me wrong, terrorists can be evil, but just like professional assassins, they can be neutral; i am trying to be realistic here, being "evil" in the real world is a bit far-fetched.
I believe default terrorists want to promote chaos in a society, and in chaos people die and that what i wanted to mean in my original argument that everyone seems to think chaotic good - or chaotic neutral - can´t be a danger to society worth to be combated by a paladin, i don´t think so, because they are people who reject society, civilization. They don´t follow the law or even believe in it, they aren´t just loners, they are people fully capable of reasoning that collateral damage is not their problem.
A CG cleric of the strength god can believe weak people are worthless to be saved first, and this behavior can kill innocent people too. So they could believe that the lawful kingdom is weak and worth of being conquered, in a war innocent people die. What the paladins will do against such enemies ?

I think you may be mixing terrorists and anarchists up. What you're describing is more of an Anarchist pr Social Darwinist kind of deal. Anarachism is a belief, terrorism is a (thoroughly despicable) method.

The wikipedia page on terrorism: Link
The wikipedia page on Anarchism: Link
The wikipedia page on Social Darwinism: Link

Verdant Wheel

No, i am thinking more in line with eco-terrorists


Wow... those are some weird definitions.

Evil doesn't mean you do evil acts because you enjoy hurting people. Evil means you DON'T CARE if people get hurt when you act to get what you want. It's comforting to label evil into something incomprehensible and say it therefore doesn't exist. Fact remains: evil is something that is always present in our lives, and we meet evil people every day, like it or not. Most of them say that "the ends justify the means", or "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs".

To return to the original discussion: Detect evil intent seems to be an extremely popular house rule. However, this effectively removes all challenge in these situations: use detect evil and kill all that bleep. Doing this will get you bad guys and only bad guys. Detect evil is much better, because the fact that someone is evil does not give the paladin or cleric the right to kill them. Perhaps they should talk to them instead, or investigate what's going on? In the campaigns I have run, people trying the "detect then kill" routine instantly lose all paladin or cleric powers forever, since it's such a blatant and willful act of evil, only motivated by the sloth of the detecting character.


I like the idea of the general "alignment" spells for protection and detection. However, it is worth a note that we have always played with this as a houserule in our campaigns (except for Paladins).

Sovereign Court

Rather than have a lengthy section in PFRPG that talks about which deeds are evil enough to spot with Detect Evil, or how long evil acts last on a person, or if a person can be repentant of past evil, or any of that...

Why not have the Detect Evil at will ability of Paladins change to a simple Detect Undead and Detect Outsiders (Evil)? Have it effect only creatures with the undead type and demons, devils, and yugoloths.

That clears up some of the issues with people being able to kill a campaign by Detecting Evil left and right while walking down the street. It also would allow the gods to be distinguished. Perhaps Paladins of a less anti-undead deity would substitute that ability with Detect Humanoids (Evil) and have it effect orcs.

It's just an idea that occurred to me, not sure if it's terrible or fantastic. On the flip side of this ability, "Evil" Paladins of an evil deity could exchange their Detect Undead and Detect Demons & Devils for Detect Fey and Detect Outsiders (Good).

It beats adding new spells to the list, changing or explaining the vagueness that is alignment and stays away from removing alignment (which I personally think is a terrible idea).

Let me know what you think.

Coledar

Liberty's Edge

I always preferred(and normally house ruled) that when you looked at the detect evil table, and it had a line for 'detect evil creature' it means a creature with the evil subtype.

Cleric's and Paladins have a class feature which gives them an aura and a line, outsiders and undead have their own line. Beyond that I only have creatures with the evil subtype register(or whatever alignment subtype you are detecting for).

This has a number of impacts on things, all of which so far I have seen seem to be good for the story. Basically a player cannot simply detect evil and spoil a part of the story simply because an NPC is unable to cast undetectable alignment or the like, and it certainly makes smiting for the paladin a bit more iffy and often has them thinking more in line with the paladins code(I'm about to strike this person, am I sure they are acting evilly rather then just being selfish or defending themselves?).

It still gives the spell many purposes though, allowing players to pick up evil spells auras that still linger, or know that a powerful outsider or undead has passed through there.

-Tarlane

Liberty's Edge

Draco Bahamut wrote:
No, i am thinking more in line with eco-terrorists

And I was thinking more of this and this.

Verdant Wheel

Timespike wrote:
Draco Bahamut wrote:
No, i am thinking more in line with eco-terrorists
And I was thinking more of this and this.

Huh, the taboo argumentation. Sorry the keep talking so that unreasonable matter has to be raised, i am dropping off the discussion.


Saurstalk wrote:
I would like to see Paizo take the Detect spells and the Protection spells and move them away from alignment. Instead, regardless the alignment of the attacker, if the person is malevolent, I would prefer that detection offer that knowledge . . . as with protection.

Why not Detect Aura?

Make it take a few rounds similar to the Detect Magic cantrip.


Timespike wrote:

I think you may be mixing terrorists and anarchists up. What you're describing is more of an Anarchist pr Social Darwinist kind of deal. Anarachism is a belief, terrorism is a (thoroughly despicable) method.

The wikipedia page on terrorism: Link
The wikipedia page on Anarchism: Link
The wikipedia page on Social Darwinism: Link

This gets into the "were the assassins evil" arguments. I would also point out that the first line of the link you posted on terrorism states, "Terrorism is a controversial term with no internationally agreed single definition."

I would also point out that this discussion is largely useless to the point of the thread.

Liberty's Edge

Pneumonica wrote:
Timespike wrote:

I think you may be mixing terrorists and anarchists up. What you're describing is more of an Anarchist pr Social Darwinist kind of deal. Anarachism is a belief, terrorism is a (thoroughly despicable) method.

The wikipedia page on terrorism: Link
The wikipedia page on Anarchism: Link
The wikipedia page on Social Darwinism: Link

This gets into the "were the assassins evil" arguments. I would also point out that the first line of the link you posted on terrorism states, "Terrorism is a controversial term with no internationally agreed single definition."

I would also point out that this discussion is largely useless to the point of the thread.

Yeah, it was a minor threadjack. I just wanted to be sure that dracobahamut and I understood what the other was saying. I'm actually not angry with him/her at all, just trying to make sure we're on the same page. As far as the "controversial term" argument, yeah, I fully admit that it's a poltically-charged and somewhat ambiguous word, but while there are things that might or might not be terrorism, things like 9/11, the Oklahoma city bombing, or suicide bombers detonating themselves in Tel Aviv fall squarely under that header. I'm also not really trying to start an argument about anything in the real world, I just wanted to make sure when one of us said something, the other understood his point. Sorry if that caused anyone to be offended; it really was not my intent at all. At any rate, the poster I was trying to suss out perspectives with has bailed out of this discussion anyway, so I guess I'll follow suit.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 2 / Combat & Magic / Detect Evil or Detect Malevolence? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Combat & Magic