
Panish Valimer |

Hi
our gaming group has run into a whole gamut of problems relating magical hiding of things, so please if you can help - we'd appreciate the following being resolved:
- An evil creature casts invisibility on itself; what happens if I "Detect Evil" to where it is?
- An invisible creature has various magical items and/or effects on it; what happens if I "Detect Magic" on it?
- An evil creature casts Undetectable Alignment on itself. My paladin declares smite against the creature. Does the smite work? In spite of the alignment being not detectably evil?
- I have Protection from Evil cast on myself. If an evil creature has "Undetectable Alignment" on itself, do I still get benefits versus its attacks/spells?
- Do each of the Protection from (Evil/Good/Law/Chaos) immunize against charm/compulsion effects - or only from those effects of the appropriately aligned source? (In other words does Protection from Evil protect against an Archon's Charm spell?)
- To fuel the discussion, in PF26 (The Sixfold Trial) on page 72 the "Sword Against Injustice" ability mentions explicitly that "If the target is protected by an effect that inhibits divinations (such as mind blank), the [ability does not work]"
I think this covers all the issues we've encountered. I sincerely hope somebody can help.

ZappoHisbane |

Undetectable Alignment hides your alignment from divination. So if the effect isn't from that school, it works. If it is, it doesn't. Note that the DM doesn't need to tell you if things worked or not (and probably shouldn't). He can always do the math behind the screen to say whether or not you were successful, or apply extra damage or not.
Detect Evil and Detect Magic will pinpoint the square of invisible creatures/items, but you need the full three rounds of concentration. And it only works for the caster. And you lose that glowing dot as soon as you stop concentrating and try to cast another spell. In other words, they're still going to have Total Concealment so you can't target them directly. Area effect spells (like Glitterdust) are fair game though.
Finally, the Protection spells only function vs. their specified alignments. Protection from Evil won't stop you from becoming the Archon's friend.

Quandary |

An evil creature casts invisibility on itself; what happens if I "Detect Evil" to where it is?
Detects as Evil, though it usually takes some time to localize one square, and you still have miss chance and other penalties of an Invisible target.
An invisible creature has various magical items and/or effects on it; what happens if I "Detect Magic" on it?
Likewise, you will be able to 'see' the square the auras are in, though he is still invisible. Check the 1st level spell Magic Aura (which I assume can also apply to living 'objects', i.e. for persistent spell effects/buffs) this would prevent detection via Detect Magic and lasts for multiple days at a time.
An evil creature casts Undetectable Alignment on itself. My paladin declares smite against the creature. Does the smite work? In spite of the alignment being not detectably evil?
You don't need to Detect it, if they ARE Evil, Smite works. PLEASE do not use this as an excuse for witch-hunt style justifaction of Paladins SMiting everything in sight :-)
I have Protection from Evil cast on myself. If an evil creature has "Undetectable Alignment" on itself, do I still get benefits versus its attacks/spells?
YES, just like Smite, Protection from Evil does not have any Divinatory component, so something preventing Divinataroy effects is irrelevant to it's function. Again, like Smite, this obviously provides an indirect way of detection. (if your GM rules that your PC can tell if their special ability is working or not)
Do each of the Protection from (Evil/Good/Law/Chaos) immunize against charm/compulsion effects - or only from those effects of the appropriately aligned source? (In other words does Protection from Evil protect against an Archon's Charm spell?)
"the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target"
Note that the parts about Evil are specified in sections BEFORE and AFTER the mental control (i.e. AC/Save bonus, vs. Summoned Creatures Natural Attacks). Mental control is totally blocked, otherwise it should have been stated in a blanket manner that EVERY aspect of the spell only applied to Evil, when it is not, and the preceding and following sections are given specific scope to apply only vs. Evil.
ZappoHisbane |

Mental control is totally blocked, otherwise it should have been stated in a blanket manner that EVERY aspect of the spell only applied to Evil, when it is not, and the preceding and following sections are given specific scope to apply only vs. Evil.
I thought that too, but it takes careful reading to see that it's not true.
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects). This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target. This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target. This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.
It's the very last line, but it's there. There is wiggle room to interpret it as meaning that this qualifier only applies to the second effect mentioned in the second paragraph (being immune to new attempts), but I don't think that makes much sense. Why would you be granted a new saving throw against a good creature's Charm Person, but not be immune to one being cast fresh?

Quandary |

Ah, that does make sense.
But I feel like that validates my point that (taking the approach it does) is bad writing, and if EVERY SINGLE EFFECT of the spell applies only to Evil, then that should be stated up-front rather than re-stating that for every sub-section (sometimes unfortunately in out-of-the-way places that are vague on exactly what they apply to). Well, I guess re-stating for clarity is fine, but the up-front sentence could be clearer (and shorter) by including all the effects under a single (against Evil) header, and the Protection vs. Mind Effects could have it's own vs. Evil more clearly applicable to both (if, as would make sense, it applies to both sections).

ZappoHisbane |

Ah, that does make sense.
But I feel like that validates my point that (taking the approach it does) is bad writing, and if EVERY SINGLE EFFECT of the spell applies only to Evil, then that should be stated up-front rather than re-stating that for every sub-section (sometimes unfortunately in out-of-the-way places that are vague on exactly what they apply to). Well, I guess re-stating for clarity is fine, but the up-front sentence could be clearer (and shorter) by including all the effects under a single (against Evil) header, and the Protection vs. Mind Effects could have it's own vs. Evil more clearly applicable to both (if, as would make sense, it applies to both sections).
Agreed. :)