| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
I've read through several threads on detect evil and at least on these boards the consensus seems to be that detect evil only detects evil auras, and evil auras are present and have the strength that are listed in the detect evil spell matrix for different creatures and classes.
Or to put it another way, detect evil will not detect evil from a less than fifth level fighter no matter how evil the fighter is because a fighter of less than level 5 has no aura.
Is there an actual FAQ or errata that explicitly states whether detect evil ONLY detects auras in this way?
For full disclosure, I am having a discussion with my paladin player who believes detect evil detects any evil at all, and that auras are only detected if the paladin looks for auras.
Also, while I am debating the RAW with the player, I frankly think the RAW is stupid if that's how it works. So I am putting my own house rule in effect anyway, but I still want to know if there has been any FAQ or errata which clarifies how the spell works on the first round. I have done FAQ searches and found nothing, but I am not convinced I am searching effectively.
Any help is appreciated. (And while opinions are welcome, please indicate if you are simply presenting your opinion. What I want is actual Paizo confirmation about how the ability/spell works with auras.)
|
There's no special FAQ or errata that I know of concerning detect evil. The spell is pretty self explanatory. You detect evil auras, and for most mortal creatures, there is no aura unless they are level 5 or higher. If you want some explanation concerning it, the aura isn't necessarily about how evil they are, but how set into being evil they are. A 5th level character has likely been evil for a long time and committed many evil acts to achieve 5th level, and their deeds have culminated into a detectable aura. Clerics, undead and such have a stronger aura due to their nature and allegiance.
The paladin's class ability functions identically to detect evil except where noted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dust Raven, with all due respect the "you detect evil auras" is not "self-explanatory" at all. My player is a college educated professional who works as a software test manager. He disputes your "self-explanatory" explanation about auras because the spell does not explicitly reference "auras" in the text about the first round of using it. It says "detects the presence of evil" not "detects the presence of evil auras".
Saying it is self-explanatory does not make it so.
This is why I am asking for explicit references to rulings from Paizo about how the spell/ability works in the first round and whether it only detects auras or not.
|
|
I couldn't care less about the pedigree of you player. Albert Einstein couldn't remember his own phone number. However...
Round one detects the presence of evil. Evil, within the spell description, is an undefined term. It therefore detects whatever the GM says it detects, provided the GM remains consistent. So, if you which to accept the literal line by line as if the spell were some sort of programming code (as it seems you player is), what the first round detects is completely up to you, the GM.
So far I have not met a player or GM that reads the spell to detect anything other than evil auras, as the phrase evil auras is used throughout the spell description and is the element which is defined as detectable.
You and your player may feel free to disagree all you want, and there are even rules printed int he CRB which allow you to do so.
Dust, you and I see it the same way, and my player is a reasonable guy and a good friend, so he is agreeable to whatever I decide, but we are still "discussing" the intent of the designers, perhaps just as an academic exercise.
FWIW, I spent most of my career as a programmer myself, so I can completely see his point of view on this, I just disagree.
This is just another example of how the rules are vague and need clarification. I know this has come up in the past because I've found several threads here on these boards discussing it. And yet again Paizo cannot be bothered to answer this simple, obvious question by releasing a FAQ or even a developer ruling that says "Hey, we forgot to put the word 'aura' in that first round, but of course that's what we meant."
I seriously get frustrated with this sort of thing. I simply am not going to accept the "hey, we get busy and have to focus on new content so we can't answer this question" response from Paizo. In the time it takes to respond that way they could resolve dozens of these little rules questions.
|
|
Meh, a philological discussion is more or less moot, as the designers don't work for Paizo. The Paizo authors lifted the spell's description almost word for word from the 3.5 ruleset, so you'd be asking the wrong people. The only change is the table which now includes a category of "none" for aura strength. If you wanted to go back to an earlier version of the spell (the 2nd level cleric spell in 2nd edition D&D), you'd find that in order to detect the evil aspect of a creature's alignment, only creatures who are "strongly aligned, do not stray from their faith, and who are at least 9th level might radiate good or evil if they are intent upon appropriate actions."
This tiny bit of lore has little bearing on the rules for Pathfinder, but demonstrates a tenancy, if not expressed intent, that detect evil not detect evil alignments (unless the evil aligned creature is really really evil in some way). Combine this with the only change from 3.5 to Pathfinder and you can really only come to one logical conclusion: "evil" and "evil aura" are interchangeable and functionally identical in the spell's description.
Maybe the Paizo authors should have added the additional word to that one line of text, but the meaning really doesn't change without it.
If you really want an official response from the Paizo people, consider flagging your post for the FAQ. If flagged, someone will eventually look at it, and if it needs clarification it will be clarified. Someday.
If you really want an official response from the Paizo people, consider flagging your post for the FAQ. If flagged, someone will eventually look at it, and if it needs clarification it will be clarified. Someday.
Heh, I flagged it, but I won't hold my breath.
Thanks for the response. I agree with your interpretation (in fact it is almost word for word what I told the player in question), but I also can understand where he is coming from.
The reason I am having the discussion with him is because he and I are the two main GMs in our group, and I would like, if possible, to have "detect evil" work the same way in both of our games, just so our other players don't get confused. But he is digging his heels in on this because of how he has always played the ability, which he sees as a key paladin ability and feels that as I have explained it, the ability is greatly reduced in role playing and game impact potential.
wouldn't it be a moot point once he gets to the level where any significant npc is going to be level 5+ (or equivalent)?
|
|
The use of detect evil, the spell, I would encourage you to not budge on. That spell has a history within the evolution of the game, and was never (in my understanding) intended to detect the evil alignment of creatures except under extraordinary circumstances.
The detect evil class ability of paladins, however, is a different animal. Even in previous editions of the rules the paladin has been able to detect not just alignment but intent, which are things the spell has not always been able to do. In pathfinder they even included an statement which allows the paladin to make use of an ability related to detect evil, and specifically references if a specific creature/item/etc is evil, rather than a simple blanket statement of "presence of evil". I'd say a paladin can detect if a creature's alignment is evil (as well as its aura, if it has one), if he used his detect evil in this way (the move action version) but not if he uses his class ability to cast the spell (a standard action).
If he can agree to that, I'd say you have a perfect compromise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or just use the dr. evil line for those not powerful enough to ping detect evil:
You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie, not evil enough.
wouldn't it be a moot point once he gets to the level where any significant npc is going to be level 5+ (or equivalent)?
The world is populated with any number of low level NPCs who have significant roles to play in my campaigns.
Even when discussing higher level NPCs who would have auras, the definition of auras and aura strengths is so limiting and arbitrary that I find it to be of limited use for what the spell or ability actually attempts to do.
I am attempting to get agreement on how our group will rule on detect evil, but to do so I wanted to get both of us to agree with one interpretation of the RAW so that we had a foundation to work from.
I have more or less decided that's not going to happen, so now I am just working with him on coming up with a mutually agreeable "house rule" that both of us will adopt.
|
|
However, if I'm a level 6 fighter, and I don't pay my parking tickets, I register as evil.
Not paying parking tickets is at best a non-lawful act. Not even chaotic. Just not lawful. Killing the meter maid would be evil. :p
I'd say anyone who bathes and the blood of virgins and rolls around in baby mash is at least level 5. You have to kill a lot of babies and virgins and those are you bread and butter XPs for evil types. That should be more than enough XP to make level 5. :p
My groups have house-ruled that "detect evil" detects SUPERNATURAL or MAGICAL evil, not MUNDANE evil.
My groups have house-ruled that "detect evil" detects SUPERNATURAL or MAGICAL evil, not MUNDANE evil.
Hmm... interesting concept.... Unfortunately it's a bit too late for that drastic of a change to the way we've been using detect evil so far. But maybe for future campaigns...
It would seem to greatly diminish the value of the spell or ability though.
What you're looking at here is basically a problem of the alignment system. Your 5th level, bathes-in-the-blood-of-virgins, kills-babies-for-sport fighter does not register as even faintly evil despite being NE as the night is long whereas your LN 1st level cleric of Asmodeus, who only went into the church because his family expected it--and signing that contract kept his sister out of the "virgin sacrifice" lottery--well, being a cleric of an evil god, he counts as faintly evil, despite being LN personally.
Of course, there's another trouble here because the Paladin has a second test for whether something is evil or not, that being, "If I smite it, does it explode?" The paladin then takes some not terribly damaging weapon--let's say a pin--and plays witchpricker, poking the possibly evil one with the pin and calling on the power of his or her god to smite the wicked. If all that occurs is a pinprick, the subject is not evil. If the pin instead creates huge hemorrhaging wounds? Subject is evil, because Smite smites actual evil, regardless of alignment, and is not fooled by proxy evil like the LN cleric of Asmodeus who's only detecting as evil because he's sworn to an evil god.
Aligned Creatures (Non Cleric, Outsider, Undead) of less than 6 HD have absolutely no detectable aura unless they are actively under the impact of a evil spell cast by a CL 6 caster or above.
Seems pretty cut and dried, low level evil simply doesn't register as evil to the Paladin.
Pretty much everyone above a certain level is going to have access to an undetectable alignment effect that they keep up on a daily basis to avoid notice of Paladins.
|
|
The parking tickets, i hope you understood was a tongue in cheek, "slightly evil" act...
Got that. Hence the ":p"
The point is, it's rediculous that a Level 6 Marginally evil fighter, registers as faintly evil... Yet a Level 4 extremely evil fighter, registers no aura.
I agree, but only in that I consider it ridiculous to have an "extremely evil" character be less than level 5 (unless he's driven by a force of evil greater than himself, such a deity).
I've never considered anything less than 5th level to be anything but "low level", and I'm sure I'm not alone there. Before 5th level, you're nothing. You have no real accomplishments yet, and those you have likely don't extend far outside the town you started adventuring in. How evil (or good, or lawful, etc.) can you really be if you've never accomplished much, if anything, with it?
Don't forget, the spell also detects "intent." An otherwise good character who is plotting to murder the man who raped his wife will detect as evil (if he's high enough level).
|
The main issue with Detect Evil is the main issue with the alignment rules in general - they're subject to much more interpretation than the more 'crunchy' rules elements. If the rules say Bob the Fighter can jump a 2 meter gap we can, for the most part, agree what that represents in the game world. 'Evil' is much more subjective, both in the real world, and in a game-world sense.
The Detect Evil spell / ability deals with the subject matter as best it can - referencing evil auras, 'cos at least then there are a few definite benchmarks. Does the creature in question have the 'evil' subtype? Is it undead? Does it dedicate itself to an evil deity? That sort of thing is pretty easy 'yes or no' answers. All that really tells you is how the thing 'pings' on the spell / ability, however. It's possible to have a non-evil creature with the evil sub-type, and it still registers on Detect Evil. A neutral Cleric of an evil deity still detects as 'evil', even if he's never commited an evil act in his life. In that respect Detect Evil doesn't even detect the target's 'morality', but rather whether it is tainted by the game-defined condition 'evil'.
But that's not the only 'evil' referenced by the spell, just the easiest to define. The spell even detects if an otherwise non-evil character with 'evil intent' is present. But what is 'evil intent'? Well... that gets back to the subjective nature of the subject matter and will almost certainly end up being 'whatever the GM says it is'. If you check the section on Alignment in the Core book you'll see that alignment can fluctuate a lot for any character - so is a character with 'evil intent' in the moment actually of the 'evil' alignment? Is an otherwise evil aligned character who does something good momentarily 'good' - would he detect as 'good' in the moment, due to temporarily altered alignment, or just because his intent is good? What about neutral intents and actions? Is an evil aligned character strolling down the street minding his own business momentarily 'neutral' 'cos in that moment both his actions and intents are neutral?
'Evil' is not something easily defined in terms of numbers and crunch (see the constant stream of 'should the paladin fall' threads for reference...). The simplest way to run Detect Evil is to just have it detect 'supernatural evil' - as defined by the auras listed. Beyond that it comes down to a GM's call... just as alignment in general does.
IIRC, the Feast of Ravenmoor module has some discussion from the developers stating expressly that evil NPCs under lvl 4 are flat out undetectable, if you wanted something in writing; i'd post a quote, but don't have the book handy
|
The ability is greatly reduced in role playing and game impact potential.
That's an extremely intentional change for the detect alignment spells that was done completely on purpose for Pathfinder. A change from the 3.5 edition of the Oldest Role-playing Game. (Almost) Everyone was extremely tired of the Detect Evil Beacon that some Paladins were behaving like so now the general populous doesn't automatically register as anything at all which saves a lot of game time and a good number of GMs' plots.
So now it gives a bit more purpose to things that actually register as evil. Role-playing is what picks up the decision if something is evil or not. The spell was effectively becoming a crutch to bypass investigation and interaction to allow one to jump ahead to a conclusion.
The ability is greatly reduced in role playing and game impact potential.That's an extremely intentional change for the detect alignment spells that was done completely on purpose for Pathfinder. A change from the 3.5 edition of the Oldest Role-playing Game. (Almost) Everyone was extremely tired of the Detect Evil Beacon that some Paladins were behaving like so now the general populous doesn't automatically register as anything at all which saves a lot of game time and a good number of GMs' plots.
So now it gives a bit more purpose to things that actually register as evil. Role-playing is what picks up the decision if something is evil or not. The spell was effectively becoming a crutch to bypass investigation and interaction to allow one to jump ahead to a conclusion.
Oh, I completely concur Morgen. But it's not me that needs convincing, and I've already used this argument without success...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My groups have house-ruled that "detect evil" detects SUPERNATURAL or MAGICAL evil, not MUNDANE evil.
This is how I play it. In my opinion, paladins have detect evil not so they can spot shoplifters, and conmen, but rather vampires and werewolves and other "masqueraders".
So in general, human level evil doesn't register.
On the other hand I like to play what I call "Be smarter than the Rules"
If a first level Hitler comes along, he'll detect as evil. As would at least one NPC in Feast of Ravenmoor. It doesn't matter what their intent is, their mere prescence is enough to have consequences for others. They have bad mojo and being first level is not enough to protect them from paladins.
Again, this is just how I play it.
|
|
I still don't believe there is such a thing as a "1st level Hitler" or any other evil, EVIL, EEEEEEEVVVIIIIIIIIILLLLL!!!! type of villain below 5th. 5th level even seems extremely low. Hitler was at least 9th level. He was put into a room with a bomb and walked away with minor injuries. Even with a successful save you only do that if you have a lot of hit points (and we know he doesn't have evasion because he did take some damage).
Are people really tossing out sicko evil nemesis style villains at 4th level or lower (of the variety that aren't driven by a supernatural force such as an evil deity)? If so, why?
Was Rhoda from "The Bad Seed" a high-level NE assassin in the body of a child or just a psychotic little girl who got away with it because no one suspected a child of such evil?
And where do you put mean spoiled brat Nellie Olson on the alignment spectrum? Certainly she's not terribly high level, and she never killed anyone, but she still made Laura's life a living hell, at least insomuch as you could for Little House on the Prairie.
This is pretty much the trouble with "Detect Evil" and alignment in general--the town mean girl is put in the same box as the psychotic murderess.
how is that a problem? 'Detect Humanoid' or 'Detect Life' would also put them in the same box.
players thinking that Detect Evil is automatic allowance for 'murder them' is the problem.
all characters have an actual alignment. evil intent is planning actions which are evil.
the GM already should be tracking character alignment, and thus needs to know what counts as evil actions.
detect evil has parameters for what it actually detects, nobody should expect it to work outside of those parameters.
Smite Evil works as an 'infallible' test of Evil, beyond what Detect Evil can do, that isn't a flaw, that's how it works.
yes, that means that Paladin Detect Evil isn't able to detect alot of Evil beings which may be valid Smite Targets at low level, if the target HD is too low... So what?
The trouble is that the scale of "evil" is posited on "hit dice" and not "degree of evil."
Let's say Rhoda is a level 1 commoner. She's also a murderess with an impressive bodycount, especially considering her age. Nellie Olson is also a level 1 commoner. Nellie's mother, Mrs. Olson, who's also a mean girl who's gone on to being a mean lady, is level 6 let's say. Mrs. Olson now detects as "faintly evil" while Rhoda does not detect at all.
i wouldn't expect anything else from the spell description.
HD and Cleric Aura have priority as far as Detect Evil is concerned.
i don't see a problem in the game design making it so detect evil isn't useful vs. low level non-clerics.
you can deal with those characters by all the other normal means of doing so (social skills, combat).
it seems like you're fixed on the spell doing something that it doesn't say it does,
as well as injecting your own concept of 'degrees of evil (alignment)' which doesnt' exist in the game.
alignment is an objective cosmological quality, and it does not have varying degrees.
different characters (with different histories) may require less # of good acts to shift over to neutral/good alignment,
but the good/neutral/evil alignments are all that exists (cosmologically) in lieu of alignment shift.
this spell is tying into those cosmological judgements of alignment,
not the 'grey-er', wishy-washy illusions that mortals may rationalize, nor is it ascertaining the exact personal history of the character in question,
it's just detecting the value of the cosmological alignment of said character, EDIT: or their active intent
which is what matters for what happens to their soul when they die.
What the spell does and what the user expects the spell to do are two different things.
While wizards are geeky enough to understand the granularity of Hit Dice and suchlike, and will be able to write down in their notes for the spell that it will detect clerics and paladins as more evil or good than they actually are based on the extended aura of their god, and moreover "personal magnetism" may overinflate the perception of a creature's alignment based on potential for evil or good--as opposed to past acts--if you take your average starry-eyed first level paladin whose god has suddenly granted him the ability to detect evil, well then, he's going to expect he's actually detecting evil without all sorts of strange interactions, false positives and negatives, and excessive whatnot.
Consequently, if you've got your town with Rhoda, Nellie, Mrs. Olson, and the unnamed LN cleric of Asmodeus, the paladin will have a hell of a time trying to figure out who's pitching babies down wells since only Mrs. Olson and the cleric are detecting as evil.
1st round detects presence or absence of evil.
Presence: condition of being present
Present: existing
Does the evil exist in any form other than evil aura? Nothing in the rules suggest existence of evil in any tangible form other than evil aura possessed by evil creatures, spells or items so if there is no evil aura then no evil is present to be detected.
Aligned Creatures (Non Cleric, Outsider, Undead) of less than 6 HD have absolutely no detectable aura unless they are actively under the impact of a evil spell cast by a CL 6 caster or above.
Where are you getting this 6 HD limit from? In the spell description it indicates characters of less than FIVE HD (non-cleric/undead/evil outsider) have no aura.
Also, reading the spell description again, I would say that the first round detects ANY evil...even level 1 creatures with an evil alignment, but that the rest of the spell won't work. One can argue that 'evil' and 'evil aura' are interchangeable, but a careful reading reveals that the first round's effect is one of only two places in the spell's description that refers to non-aura'ed evil, the other being
Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them. Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
which also seems to indicate the ability to detect someone with evil intentions without an evil aura.
Given the repetition of the usage of 'evil aura' throughout the rest of the spell's description, I'd argue that the intent of the spell is to allow the caster to detect the presence of evil (evil-aligned creatures of any HD, and creatures with evil intentions), but not be able to gain any specific information about anything without an aura.Now, under that interpretation, you could, over several rounds, pinpoint the evil creature by moving your detection zone around to determine where the aura isn't, but that's a lengthy amount of time, requires your subject to be not moving (or not moving much), and your being relatively certain that there isn't anything else at all that could be in the same area that is detecting as evil (and I could foresee using this to trick players by putting something evil on the other side of a thin barrier, or invisible, or something like that).
it doesn't seem that complicated to understand that it detects 'accomplished evil', which corresponds to HD or being a Cleric/Paladin, and that 'active intent of evil' also counts... NOT detecting all evil creatures regardless of HD.
how is that any more complicated than tons of other spells, e.g. sleep being limited to creatures 4 total HD, so whether a creature is affected or not depends on it's own HD and the HD of other creatures, while some creatures are immune to sleep, while some creatures get a bonus vs. it, etc...?
if you want to role-play your character as not understanding every variant of a spell they have, great, you can do that for any spell/ability, but that isn't required either.
Hmmm. As a truly twisted GM, it sounds like I am gonna start making a lot of 5th level Rogue assassin types in the near future....
(cue the lightning and thunder FX)
BwaHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where are you getting this 6 HD limit from? In the spell description it indicates characters of less than FIVE HD have no aura.Aligned Creatures of less than 6 HD have absolutely no detectable aura unless they are actively under the impact of a evil spell cast by a CL 6 caster or above.
Confusing the break-points of limits and their 'equal to/ more than/ less than' qualifier is a pretty damn common mistake.
Looking at the chart on page 266 of the Core Rulebook- Creatures of 5 HD or less simply don't have an detectable aura. The second column that lists 5-10 is probably in error and should read 6-10 HD as registering as faint.
I think it's also important that evil intent doesn't give the PC the right to smite the evil NPC. People can be quite evil yet perfectly law-abiding, indeed many LE NPCs work explicitly within the letter of the law, and are protected by the law (and those who uphold it like Paladins). So you might know that the LE cleric of Asmodeus is evil but that doesn't give you rights to slaughter him and if you harm him and his, he can often use his legal rights to pursue a case against you.
Many LE or even NE and CE characters can be perfectly normal and even pleasant to be around and they can even have objectives that align with a LG party in many cases. I think it's very interesting to have the LG paladin placed in a situation where he has to be pleasant and accommodating to Evil NPCs because they can be instrumental in defeating a more dangerous and immediate evil. It's really fun when the actions of the LG do-gooders end up actually advancing the schemes of a evil mastermind who has maneuvered them into conflict with a rival but is also protected from retribution by the PCs.
So detect evil can be a really powerful tool but it can also be the source of a lot of drama as you can force PCs to choose between the lesser of two evils.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/detectEvil.html#detect-evil
From the PRD, it indicates 4 HD or less are no aura, 5-10 faint, etc...
Maybe there was errata?
In any case, I think it would be more interesting for a paladin to detect evil, but not be able to figure out exactly WHO he is detecting, because they are too low a level, especially in a low-level game. It also means that things like kobolds aren't going to just PING as being evil, and therefore killable, and allows for greater latitude in presenting non-evil versions of typically evil creatures to throw the party off.
|
|
The trouble is that the scale of "evil" is posited on "hit dice" and not "degree of evil."
Let's say Rhoda is a level 1 commoner. She's also a murderess with an impressive bodycount, especially considering her age. Nellie Olson is also a level 1 commoner. Nellie's mother, Mrs. Olson, who's also a mean girl who's gone on to being a mean lady, is level 6 let's say. Mrs. Olson now detects as "faintly evil" while Rhoda does not detect at all.
We could just as easily say Rhoda is a level 5 commoner. Maybe not though. Might be more than 1 with an "impressive bodycount". You could also say he doesn't radiate an evil aura. She's young, killed at most 3 people, one of which is a known case of self preservation. Evil, sure. But not really glow-in-the-dark evil. The main aspect which makes her character creepy is that she's an otherwise "innocent little girl". I'd hardly say that makes her more evil than an adult low level commoner who'd also be evil aligned.
Nellie is hardly warrants an evil aura. Cruel, perhaps, and maybe she has an evil alignment. But she's nowhere near glow-in-the-dark evil.
I think it's also important that evil intent doesn't give the PC the right to smite the evil NPC.
Not according to medieval tradition of the hue and cry, remember that this is what the game is based on. You are injecting your modern moral view on what is essentially a game based on medieval values.
Not according to medieval tradition of the hue and cry, remember that this is what the game is based on. You are injecting your modern moral view on what is essentially a game based on medieval values.
I think it's also important that evil intent doesn't give the PC the right to smite the evil NPC.
PF isn't normally a monotheistic society where you can just go around smiting random shop owners because the register as evil on your scanner. For one thing evil aura's can be faked and would probably disappear after the death of the victim which might leave the Pally having some explaining to do after he smites Yeoman Janek because he's an adulterer and a miser. Sure people won't cry about his death that much but it still violates the basic law of the land.
While some nations might condone the Paladin being judge, jury and executioner I think those are kinda few and far between.
|
I seem to remember a comment from one of the paizo staff using a wererat in 2nd lvl commoner form being detected upon by Detect Evil as not registering. Even though it is a wererat, it is not high enough level to register. The explanation seems to imply that the spell is technically "Detect Evil auras" in gameplay rather than "Detect Evil alignments as defined by statblock". I could not find this reference however, maybe someone else with better search-fu can find this reference. I did find *this table* that shows the strength of auras.
As a GM, I would probably houserule this so if I had an NPC that had done heinous acts like poisoning an entire village or eating baby hearts he might detect as evil, no matter his HD/lvl.
Parting thoughts-
Also, by logical extension, this would also seem to imply that with this definition of what evil is, any evil creature under 5th lvl would not be available as a target for Smite Evil, though I have never seen this questioned in the same manner.
Also, I noticed something interesting under Detect Evil that I think often gets overlooked. I have never heard of a paladin or cleric detecting evil and being stunned by its intensity.
Dust Raven, with all due respect the "you detect evil auras" is not "self-explanatory" at all. My player is a college educated professional who works as a software test manager. He disputes your "self-explanatory" explanation about auras because the spell does not explicitly reference "auras" in the text about the first round of using it. It says "detects the presence of evil" not "detects the presence of evil auras".
Saying it is self-explanatory does not make it so.
This is why I am asking for explicit references to rulings from Paizo about how the spell/ability works in the first round and whether it only detects auras or not.
The book is not worded perfectly but many times the intent is clear. No FAQ is needed.
If he wants to play the game by RAW he is about to be very disappointed.That is why paladins and clerics are treated differently then other creatures that have less than 5 HD. Otherwise he has to explain why its done like that for the purpose of intent.
I dunno. If you or I had the capacity to detect evil alignments, you know darned well the human race would either exterminate or lock up anyone who detected as evil.
Far lesser reasons have been used to kill en masse in the real world.
This is why any of my upper level NPC's who are Evil have magic items to prevent detection, especially if they interact with society on a regular basis.
Dust Raven, with all due respect the "you detect evil auras" is not "self-explanatory" at all. My player is a college educated professional who works as a software test manager. He disputes your "self-explanatory" explanation about auras because the spell does not explicitly reference "auras" in the text about the first round of using it. It says "detects the presence of evil" not "detects the presence of evil auras".
Saying it is self-explanatory does not make it so.
This is why I am asking for explicit references to rulings from Paizo about how the spell/ability works in the first round and whether it only detects auras or not.
The book is not worded perfectly but many times the intent is clear. No FAQ is needed.
If he wants to play the game by RAW he is about to be very disappointed.That is why paladins and clerics are treated differently then other creatures that have less than 5 HD. Otherwise he has to explain why its done like that for the purpose of intent.
Which was my point--"evil auras" is repeated often enough that the places where it isn't are conspicuous enough to indicate that the whole spell doesn't revolve around detecting evil auras, but that some PARTS of it do, which is why I think you can detect the presence or absence of evil, even if the only evil thing around is a 1HD kobold, but wouldn't be able to see how many evil auras are around, where they originate, or who exactly is evil there, because those other functions specifically mention auras, which is a clearly defined term in this case.