Detect Evil of Paladins

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

Hello

I am aware that the Detect Evil ability works differently in ROE, and this is just fine as it makes it useful for other things.

I am also aware that there may be social fallout if this is used now and then. However, as it no longer detects alignment, but actually more truly the intent to do evil or recent evil activity, is it still frowned upon as bad as the old version was?

And could we get a refresher course on what exactly it does, as we've read up based on old stuff from ROE1? 

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

IT IS ABOUT THE RUDEST THING A PALADIN CAN DO!!!

Particularly a realm that goes out of its way not to offend (sayim).

The gist of Detect Evil is that it doesn't detect alignment.  It detect actions.

For instance,

Osoer kills an innocent.

If detected a few minutes after it happens, sure he radiates evil.
If a few days have gone by, maybe just a very small taint.
If a few weeks passes, you will discover nothing.

Say he just kills a criminal though.

You may detect nothing after a few minutes.

Say he lies...

Probably nothing.

etc.

It is only for the vilest crimes, that detect evil will work.  Otherwise, it is implying that the particular regent is Shadowspawn.  If you weren't a n00b, you would have been facing a duel, more than likely or something of that nature.

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

Hm, very well.

My reasoning was that as a "nerfed" version it was less insulting, and indeed, it would benefit shadowspawn to know paladins didn't check for them even though they can...

But very well. My reason for doing so, was in fact to detect if Gerad had somehow been tainted, but its of little consequence so for my sake we can ret-con it out.

[X-IHH/Wallac Isilviere (Kasper)]

If Osoer is behind the murder of Martin Royce how long after will detect evil show it?

And here I thought Niels was utterly against ret-con 

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

I do strongly prefer not to do it, but if it is that much of a deal, it would actually be against my aligment and code to do it. Hence impossible.

[X-DM Jon]

You scare the DM's that you'll discover all the evil buggers before their time is up 

 Personally I think it's perfectly acceptable for paladins to detect left, right and centre - if you believe you have just cause obviously.

 And since the detect evil ability is an innate ability for the paladin - i.e. not a spell that needs mumbo jumbo - it should be doable without being discovered. It is after all what the Paladin is there for!

 There are plenty of ways to protect against this kind of detection and in most cases I'd think the detection attempt failed due to nobles having easy access to minor magic items protecting against these things (but not against realm spells).

 So I don't see the problem of anyone using detect evil at all.

[DM B]

Alan is very much correct; the social fallout is considerable. Innate ability or no, if a paladin starts using his power on a sovereign, he's implying that he's in doubt as to his character. That's npt going to sit well at court...

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

I always assumed that the paladin had to stare at the target, but that there were no obvious OOTS type indicators.

I'd note that it's a pretty blunt instrument - evil does not mean guilty, particularly when considering a specific crime. 'aha Lord Osoer detects as evil' ' yes my son, for young lady Gweniver hath just swished by and she is yet illegally young...'

Any paladin wanting to whammo someone proud should be smart enough to do it from a distance/behind/etc - good does not mean stupid.  Of course those who equate good with chivalry (esp for paladins) may consider that underhanded rather than polite and so ban it, lots of games have very unpleasant paladins simply because they act like social boors in the mis-placed assumption that absolute honesty is always necessary.

[DM B]

I always assumed that the paladin had to stare at the target, but that there were no obvious OOTS type indicators.

I'd note that it's a pretty blunt instrument - evil does not mean guilty, particularly when considering a specific crime. 'aha Lord Osoer detects as evil' ' yes my son, for young lady Gweniver hath just swished by and she is yet illegally young...'

Any paladin wanting to whammo someone proud should be smart enough to do it from a distance/behind/etc - good does not mean stupid.  Of course those who equate good with chivalry (esp for paladins) may consider that underhanded rather than polite and so ban it, lots of games have very unpleasant paladins simply because they act like social boors in the mis-placed assumption that absolute honesty is always necessary.

Absolutely true; but then again, is it paladin-like to use subterfuge like that?

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

It is evil to lie, not neccessarily illegal.

As Lawful Neutral, I am bound by laws, not morality, beyond the specific tenets of my deity.

So, a Paladin of Avanalae has a wider range to work within, than a LG Paladin, but its still smaller than Joe GoodGuy who is LG but not a Paladin.

Given that its insulting to do, however, and how little gain there would be in the context it has been used so far, Rashid would simply not risk a faux pas for that.

[X-Ghieste & HOT/GH (Matt)]

It is evil to lie, not neccessarily illegal.

Now that is an interesting philosophical discussion....

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

Not only is it not evil to lie 'does my butt look big in this?  Yes of course you fat slag' ' wah' but it is only the most upper class hoity toity paladin who would ever consider it wrong to lie, and only a near-autistic fool would consider refusing to do so.

So yes, one paladin might openly tell their lord that they are going to detect evil on them - the less arrogant paladin will recognise that rotting in a dungeon serves nothing but pride and do their detection nice and quietly - preferably while the king is pre-occupied - and if the result is 'hell yes' work to undermine the king and ensure that a new heir is in place before they make the slightest overt act.  Even if the first paladin can outfight the guard and execute the king (proving that might makes right and murder at whim is fine in the process even if they somehow don't break the law to boot) they leave a king-less land ripe for conquest and anarchy - hardly paladin like behaviour.

A paladin will routinely use illusion and mis-direction to avoid outright lies - much like anyone 'my dear, I am blinded by your radiance' and other polite civilities - and frankly lie like a trooper when it serves the greater good 'do you know where your lord is' 'no / just down the keep past the unmanned cauldrons of boiling oil/etc'. 

As for tactical judgment - to fail to check someone is evil quietly so that they are not warned to conceal their activities is for the paladin to put their pride before their duty to protect the innocent.

I'm a big fan of 'peasant' paladins and 'middle class' paladins who emulate the best hopes and aspirations of the lower orders rather than only 'upper class' paladins in shiny armour.  I often get amazed at how many paladins consider duty, humility, consideration, etc as beneath them - or even 'wrong' - let the cavaliers charge in sword held high, the paladin's duty is to stop the evil, not win plaudits for doing so.

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

Very true Andy. And a description I try to apply to Rashid.

Detecting evil, for me, is never as a prelude to imminent distribution of justice. I mean, if if someone flags out, what did they Do?

Why? - And is there more evil coming?

For a Paladin of Reason, these things are much more important than for the stereotypic Lawful Stupid played by so many.

[DM B]

Not only is it not evil to lie 'does my butt look big in this?  Yes of course you fat slag' ' wah' but it is only the most upper class hoity toity paladin who would ever consider it wrong to lie, and only a near-autistic fool would consider refusing to do so.

So yes, one paladin might openly tell their lord that they are going to detect evil on them - the less arrogant paladin will recognise that rotting in a dungeon serves nothing but pride and do their detection nice and quietly - preferably while the king is pre-occupied - and if the result is 'hell yes' work to undermine the king and ensure that a new heir is in place before they make the slightest overt act.  Even if the first paladin can outfight the guard and execute the king (proving that might makes right and murder at whim is fine in the process even if they somehow don't break the law to boot) they leave a king-less land ripe for conquest and anarchy - hardly paladin like behaviour.

A paladin will routinely use illusion and mis-direction to avoid outright lies - much like anyone 'my dear, I am blinded by your radiance' and other polite civilities - and frankly lie like a trooper when it serves the greater good 'do you know where your lord is' 'no / just down the keep past the unmanned cauldrons of boiling oil/etc'. 

As for tactical judgment - to fail to check someone is evil quietly so that they are not warned to conceal their activities is for the paladin to put their pride before their duty to protect the innocent.

I'm a big fan of 'peasant' paladins and 'middle class' paladins who emulate the best hopes and aspirations of the lower orders rather than only 'upper class' paladins in shiny armour.  I often get amazed at how many paladins consider duty, humility, consideration, etc as beneath them - or even 'wrong' - let the cavaliers charge in sword held high, the paladin's duty is to stop the evil, not win plaudits for doing so.

One possible interpretation; but why would the paladin do all this detecting? What is that he hopes to find? After any number of years peering at nobles and commoners more or less evil (mostly less), what use is it?

There is a reason we call it detect shadowspawn/taint more than we do evil, because it is more focused towards that sort of detecting.

Anyway, all men with power are evil and corrupt, so they all read as evil 

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

I removed the power in games I ran - it simply had very little purpose.

Keeping it for shadow spawn, demons, etc made it usable and stopped it being the magic flashlight.

Hmm, cynic, not all men of power are evil - unless you define one as the other.  But those that survive almost always have someone - practical - near to them... 

A lot depends really on how you define evil, you can be good and successful, it just tends to take longer - although it can be far more secure in the long term.  Those with a reputation for being underhand are trusted less, people accept more hardship from those known to be fair assuming that they will be rewarded when times improve, etc.