Alignment is objective?
Objective means no gray area and no opinions. You've done it! The debate over what equates to "good" and what equates to "evil," a debate which has raged for thousands upon thousands of years, a debate which possibly predates civilized human society as we know it... is over.
Xaratherus has solved it all. There's no subjective interpretation of alignment anymore - he's figured it out. "Good" and "evil" are now perfectly clearly defined, and debate is impossible. After all, it's objective now.
Heh. Comedy aside, alignment will always come down to the province of the GM. No rulebook will ever be able to change that.
First, you're equating the debate over real-world morality with the system of alignment in the game. The two aren't equivalent, nor did I imply that morality in the real world was objective; I went out of my way to point out I was talking about the game's rules only.
Second, the designers have stated that in Pathfinder, alignment is objective. Something defined as evil by the rules, even if it is done for good purposes, is still evil. So that spell that has an [evil] tag, or that action that mirrors an example in the alignment section, of evil? Still evil, even if you're doing it to cure a busload of orphans or save a litter of puppies from drowning..
If people choose to debate it, that's fine (I think they should - see below); that doesn't make it any less RAW.
The fact that there are many things that aren't explicitly defined as evil is what frequently (not always) tends to open the debates on the alignment system.
And the truth is that even at my table (which I already implied above), I generally throw out the alignment system, because I believe the idea of objective alignment is ridiculous. But I recognize that is a house rule, or at the very best RAI by general consensus of the player base.
|
The confusion I think you're having is that, in universe, alignment is objective. Within a single GM's game, based on the morality of the individual gods and metaphysical entities that rule over it, evil is one thing and good is another. As a CHARACTER, not a player, I know that evil and good aren't things I can just decide for myself - if I do evil, my soul is at risk of being claimed by evil gods (or whatever that particular cosmology defines).
But between games, and between players, alignment will never be objective. It can't be. You will always, always, always get players who say "torturing a demon lord by pouring holy water on it is evil" and others who say "killing an evil peasant is both good and heroic" and there is no way to "check" or "confirm" which one is right or wrong.
Just because there are certain things that are "always evil" doesn't mean there is no gray area covering the vast majority of the trillions upon trillions of possible actions. Knowing that slaughtering children to save a village is "always evil" doesn't mean you suddenly know whether it's an evil act to steal food from a temple (what if you needed it?) or whether it's truly "good" if you risk your life to save someone, knowing you'll be paid for it.
Everyone will have opinions about all of these. There might be a consensus but that in no way makes it "objective."
Look at the chart under Detect Evil. The first row is for Evil creatures that is not undead, an outsider, or a cleric or paladin of an evil deity. It says that 4 or lower HD do not detect as any aura, ie "None."
They could use Undetectable Alignment to cover an item or another creature that does detect, like a party cleric, etc. There are all kinds of instances where it would be useful at lower levels.
Before you "fix" it for being "plain stupid," you might want to try to understand what the rule is designed to deal with. A paladin's detect evil ability completely destroys low level adventures where the identity of the villian is an open question. Instead of the paladin's ability resolving the entire adventure without a single roll, the party needs to investigate and identify the villian using their wits, skills, and other abilities. The paladin's ability is also very good in low level dungeons because it can be used through wooden doors and the like, allowing the party access to an easy to use enemy detection power.
What ia m getting is that infinite detect evil was a bad idea.
I really hate the thought-police murder hobo of self-righteousness that has become the expected Paladin.
Hey, wisdom is their dump stat for a reason...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If 1-HD NPCs pinged as evil, EVERY PALADIN would fall for becoming a genocidal maniac.
Except for the paladins that were played worth a damn.
Not every paladin player does the ridiculous "DETECT EVIL/SMITE EVIL" thing. Some actually play their paladins as Good and remember things like mercy, redemption, and the like.
Never mind found the answer I was looking for.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=414?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#20660
I am not sure what that quote says that wasn't already referenced in the spell description. Like I said, if you are not a cleric, paladin, outsider, or undead and you are 4 or less HD, then you have no aura of evil or whatever alignment you may be. However, I am glad you found your answer.
Is it me, or some guys just forget the Law/Chaos balance ?
If a paladin tries to pull me the "I detect this man evil ? Let's slaughter him!" in a town, I predict he will lost his paladin ability in a blink of an eye!
No, seriously, paladins are LG only for a reason.
I've never seen a paladumb before, and I'm grateful for that(even if it can be interesting when purposely and well played I'm sure). The fact you seems to say it's the norm among the player is frightening if it's true, because it's both a problem about players and GMs.
They've got really great tools against evil, but that doesn't mean they don't have to use their brain. IMO it can even be more brain-using to use your abilities the right way in some adventures.
One of my friends even pointed something: If we wanted to be absolutely perfect in following the Law, it would even be hard for a paladin to swing his sword first against an humanoïd, as a lot of countries state it's forbidden to kill a man, except to defend yourself.
As a sidenote, I really like the kind of villain Blaphers are talking about: You're using the law to every attempt, trying to keep every public action loved by the people. Then you turn people's opinion to think Evil is Good... Hey, let's nazi a nation! I like that kind of villains, vicious perfect LE, pain in the scrotum for adventurers to be put down because he's loved by everyone.
I find it interesting how RARELY I even USE Detect evil. With all the ways to block or spin magic... I find the idea WAY to unreliable to base decisions on.
That's what Sense Motive is for. :D
On a separate note, we did have one adventure completely crash for a NON paladin using detect evil :)
It was a floating DM game, where are characters were sitting in a tavern and some guy offered us a job. First thing one of the players did was cast Detect Evil....
DM just stared at us for a moment... and said WHY would they do that!?!
We replied that the LAST guy who offered this group a job betrayed them and set them up to die... it was standard practice now :P
He had to do a lot of improving after that :D
Soooo yeah, I can see plenty of reasons for having the 'commoners don't count' clause in the game.
That is correct. I just found out about this today myself
What ia m getting is that infinite detect evil was a bad idea.Before you "fix" it for being "plain stupid," you might want to try to understand what the rule is designed to deal with. A paladin's detect evil ability completely destroys low level adventures where the identity of the villian is an open question. Instead of the paladin's ability resolving the entire adventure without a single roll, the party needs to investigate and identify the villian using their wits, skills, and other abilities. The paladin's ability is also very good in low level dungeons because it can be used through wooden doors and the like, allowing the party access to an easy to use enemy detection power.
Paladins' Detect Evil is not totally as per the spell
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.
"A single item or individual" and can't be used through doors and walls so not really bad guy radar. Also as a move action's worth of concentration it's a detectable action.
"Hey there's a big heavily armoured dude(ss) concentrating on me..."
Paladins' Detect Evil is not totally as per the spell
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."A single item or individual" and can't be used through doors and walls so not really bad guy radar. Also as a move action's worth of concentration it's a detectable action.
"Hey there's a big heavily armoured dude(ss) concentrating on me..."I was going to dismiss this as thread necromancy, but you bring up a good point that helped in a game last weekend: The Paladin has to focus on something specific to detect evil. That means you can't try to use it to find invisible opponents. I never allowed it to find invisible opponents even without the "specific item or individual" caveat, but now I'll be more strict: Asking what, specifically, a paladin is trying to identify as evil.
Like this thread, which has been raised as undead.
A Paladin can use detect evil as the spell.
|
Please tell me that was a joke.
One can be evil and still be a law abiding and productive citizen.
In fact, it would not be uncommon. The cold hearted landlord, the greedy politician, the lawyer more concerned with his legal fees than who his client is, the spiteful old man in the bar.
All could be evil. None of are guilty of a crime. In the court of law, they are innocent. It is the paladin who has murdered unarmed civilians unprovoked.
If you're unwilling to act on your good/evil intentions, then you are neutral.
The HD limit doesn't really solve most plot issues. Rarely is the secret evil villain a low level person with too few HD to show up on detect evil.
I like in many example here a paladin confront evil sword in hand 99.9% of the time, regardless of the evil in question. Seriously if we are in a town and I just to happen to find a level 5 or more commoner that is lawful evil by detecting evil, I will simply take note of it, I don't need to run after the guy and inflict multiple stab wounds to satisfy my urge to do "justice" and protect the "good". Why not just ask the guy if he has a nice day, offer him a drink and try to know more about that person?
I already did that, and have never regretted it. Neither have any my players over the last couple alignment-free decades.
When you remove alignment from your game, do you just get rid of all of the alignment based spells and abilities or do you adjust them in some manner?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The HD limit doesn't really solve most plot issues. Rarely is the secret evil villain a low level person with too few HD to show up on detect evil.
Your mileage may vary, but, generally, if a secret evil villian is high enough level to ping on detect evil, such villian is also high enough level to have an alignment shielding item, which is why it's mostly relevant to lower level play.
As a note, there are two clauses to the Paladin's Detect Evil ability. The first one is that they can, at will, use detect evil, as the spell. The second clause is the special paladin ability, as a move action, to focus on one person or object and get the 3 round spell information on that person or object.
This.
'as the spell' is a cone area and he'd know if 'there was evil in that cone'.... Which is JUST about useless I found out. We had an invisible caster in a large, room... I wandered around trying to find her with the spell... everytime I got a blip, before I could narrow it down, she moved again...
Move and cast, move and cast....
very frustrating.
Yep,
Like I said... pretty useless..
I kept pinging around hoping for an 'area'... then maybe someone else could fireball it or something... but everytime I got close, she moved and I lost her.
Sorry for the Necromancy I was searching and didn't check the date.
When it says "Detect Evil as the spell" I think it means only as described in the next sentence rather than either as the spell or as described.
The "as the spell" bit is only for what it finds/does; if it wasn't there'd be an "or" in there somewhere. It would be a bit major to give an "at will", unlimited spell to a first level character that's why it's so restricted in what it does.
So all those orisons and cantrips are overpowered? Say like Detect Magic?Sorry for the Necromancy I was searching and didn't check the date.
When it says "Detect Evil as the spell" I think it means only as described in the next sentence rather than either as the spell or as described.
The "as the spell" bit is only for what it finds/does; if it wasn't there'd be an "or" in there somewhere. It would be a bit major to give an "at will", unlimited spell to a first level character that's why it's so restricted in what it does.
No they aren't overpowered, Detect Evil isn't an Orison or a cantrip it's a first level Cleric spell.
Pretty sure we got an unambiguous clarification that, no, those are two separate things. You can at-will do the concentration thing, OR you can at-will use a move action to concentrate on a specific target and find out whether it is evil. Two separate options. The at-will thing is a standard action to start and requires concentration.
I've just spent a good half hour checking through old threads and I can't find an unambiguous answer anywhere, just lots of people saying one or the other and asking for a FAQ. I think it's "make up your own mind" until they rule it. All the arguments have been well rehearsed and positions taken.
In my games there is only the Move action version; in your games I would follow your ruling.
My lawyer friend, and I both find this statement offensive.
Protecting those who do evil (Scumbag defense lawyers)
Why? Are you scumbags?
;D
Theft through legal means (Tax loopholes, Fraud, ect)
This is pretty clearly Chaotic, in fairness.
Enjoying um... unseemly acts in the bedroom
Harming one's self for pleasure
Wait WHAT WHAT WHAT THE FUDGE
Those are not evil acts. Those are acts you personally find kinda icky. Know the difference.
You do know this thread died a year ago, right?
Wait, what? How did I get here?
Oh, Finlanderboy did it. Everybody blame Finlanderboy.