Detect Alignment Spells

[Winterborne]

It should be able to detect even subtle evil, IMO (not that subtle evil is really a thing here).

Knowing someone is evil is not the same as knowing what they are up to and people can't by virtue of the spell really act on someone doing good things for evil reasons anyway.

People already just assume everyone is evil a lot of the time because of the lack of detect alignment - and there is really no downside to doing this. If there's a way to hide from or trick the spell then people will simply continue as they are and the spell will simply not get used at all or it will be considered so unreliable as to not be worth using.

I know I IC wouldn't trust the spell as proposed, not would I trust anyone who put faith in the results of it.

[Rhifox]

If Derik's hatred for certain people has a good-aligned reason (maybe they are evil and have done evil things that he hates), his "murderous" intent isn't so "murderous", as it is righteous. (On the other hand, if he simply hates them for no moral reason at all, and just wants to kill them, perhaps he is not as "super not-evil" as described?)

If there's a good-aligned reason, then detect evil wouldn't pick it up. Murder is generally defined as killing an innocent.

Not to mention how the classes that ping on if character is also evil, seems to be picked a bit on arbitrary grounds. What makes an evil Dread Pirate radiate evil where an evil Frenzied Berserker does not? A bard does not? Barbarian?

Dread Pirate as a class is built around raiding, robbing, causing fear, and killing people (and, if you're Evil, those people will probably be innocent people). A frenzied berserker isn't so explicitly flavored around murder -- an evil-aligned frenzied berserker might still spend most of their time attacking monsters or fighting legitimate wars, etc. Though I did consider including frenzied berserker, I ultimately decided against it because nothing in the class description specifically says that they turn their fury on innocent people.

I guess the difference here is that fun DnD trope where doing murder and mayhem on innocent "civilized" races is evil, but it's neutral or even good if you're doing it on monsters. Dread Pirate is focused on attacking civilized races rather than monsters. FB is less clear on that.

But admittedly, both dread pirate and frenzied berserker were two classes I struggled on whether or not to include, and could go either way.

Good and evil are objective in Forgotten Realms. They are forces of nature: This is why Protection from Alignment works the way it does (in-character).

Protection from Alignment works even in non-FR pnp, even with 2e's intent-based Detect Evil. Nor does 2e Forgotten Realms sourcebooks say anything about core intent-based Detect spells acting differently in an FR game. Detect spells detecting actual alignment is an edition difference, not a setting difference.

For this to have any utility (and I would add Detect Good, Law and Chaos as well), it has to be non-arbitrary in what it detects.

Why does it need to be 100% guaranteed to have utility?

Also, yes, others would be added. Detect Evil is the one most people think about when talking about these, though.

[Steve]

Dread Pirate as a class is built around raiding, robbing, causing fear, and killing people...

Ha!



But seriously, even our BGTSCC wiki page has this in the description of the PrC: "Others minimize bloodshed and exhibit a curious sort of chivalry. "

Also...tell it to Mealir Ostirel!

[artemitavik]

But are we not playing 3.5 ed rather than 2nd ed?

I guess my issue with the way it seems to be set up is "Ok, I think this guy might be evil, I cast detect evil. Yep, he might be evil." (or visa versa) because the results have SO much that skews them even without having a counter up.

Not to mention, let's face it, with the prevalence of UMD to get items, almost everyone on the server will likely ping Evil due to the using item: Limited Evil at some point or another. This is just one of those things that has been an allowable thing for years upon years upon years and now is suddenly going to ping someone not what they are on a detect spell. It's adding potential, serious consequences for action that for 15 years haven't had any sort of issues and have been mechanically encouraged in the Numbers Arms Race.

[Blackman D]

I remember how we were all told in 2014 in the Radiant Heart that we couldnt detect evil, mostly because people wouldnt accept a mechanical means to expose their allignments. One can hope that mentality has changed.

well this was also because a paladin should not be using smite evil just to see if someone is evil or not, which was happening a lot and was/is metagaming

[Ithilan]

I remember how we were all told in 2014 in the Radiant Heart that we couldnt detect evil, mostly because people wouldnt accept a mechanical means to expose their allignments. One can hope that mentality has changed.

well this was also because a paladin should not be using smite evil just to see if someone is evil or not, which was happening a lot and was/is metagaming

Yeah well that was just blatant rule breaking, luckily we are past those PvP times at large id hope. But you are right, ive even had my paladin be subject to said smites

I do like this implementation presented, though I have some concerns over specific evil clerics that may not have access to Non-Detection, but very much operate in the secret at large. And thus ill echo some of artemitavik's concerns too, I hope the usage of this spell will not be part of standard introductions by certain people

Any kind of divination magic that targets a specific individual could be treated as PvP initiation id assume though.

[Blackman D]

pretty sure the rules still support unwanted magic cast on you as auto pvp consent, since it can be viewed by a non caster as a hostile act

[Rhifox]

Dread Pirate as a class is built around raiding, robbing, causing fear, and killing people...

Ha!



But seriously, even our BGTSCC wiki page has this in the description of the PrC: "Others minimize bloodshed and exhibit a curious sort of chivalry. "

Also...tell it to Mealir Ostirel!

Once again: It is not the class that flags it. It's the class + the character's own alignment.

Dread Pirate Roberts was not an Evil-aligned dread pirate and wouldn't flag detect evil. Someone like Captain Barbossa or Blackbeard is and would.

[Deathgrowl]

Dread Pirate as a class is built around raiding, robbing, causing fear, and killing people

Not according to the class description. It mentions that as well, but "some" do that, "others" do not:

Hidden: show

Thugs and cutthroats in every port lay claim to the title “pirate,” but actually making a fortune through piracy is no easy task. A dread pirate, however, has mastered every aspect of larceny on the high seas. His network of contacts tells him when a particularly valuable cargo is shipping out. After a flawless ambush at sea, he swings aboard the target ship on a rope, rapier in hand. Once he and his shipmates have overpowered the prize vessel’s crew, they liberate the cargo and make their escape. Later, the dread pirate meets representatives from the black market in an isolated cove and sells his newly acquired cargo for a handsome profit.
Some dread pirates accomplish their goals through fear, killing indiscriminately and ruling their ships at rapier point. Others minimize bloodshed and exhibit a curious sort of chivalry, perhaps realizing that the captain and crew of a prize ship are more likely to surrender if they believe they will live to see port again. Now and then a dread pirate takes his chivalric streak a step farther and preys only on the ships of enemy nations—or even solely on other pirates.
A dread pirate’s lifestyle is ideal for most rogues, because the job requires a number of skills that other classes don’t have the time or inclination to learn. However, the class also attracts some spellcasters, who can use magic to conceal their ships or incapacitate a prize vessel’s crew.

And what about Guild thief?

I realise assassin and ghost-faced killer have evil alignment restriction in PnP, but we don't have that here. Either we should treat them as according to our rules (realising assassination isn't synonymous with murder, for example, and that assassinations happen for good aligned reasons too), or we restrict them according to the source.

Protection from Alignment works even in non-FR pnp, even with 2e's intent-based Detect Evil. Nor does 2e Forgotten Realms sourcebooks say anything about core intent-based Detect spells acting differently in an FR game. Detect spells detecting actual alignment is an edition difference, not a setting difference.

Protection from Evil will protect you from evil actions, or even neutral actions (a non-evil mind-affecting spell, for example) performed by evil actors. The ward doesn't care whether the character is a wizard or a cleric of an evil god. The distinction lies in the alignment of the action or the actor. Not on in-the-moment intent.

Why does it need to be 100% guaranteed to have utility?

For the same reason Detect Magic or Detect Animals or Plants does.

And with a counter like Undetectable Alignment.

[Rhifox]

Clearly this certainly doesn't work when people have to be told over and over again that simply having the class does not flag it, it is the combination of alignment and class.

Assassin, GFK, Dread Pirate, and Guild Thief do not require evil. There can be good, honorable members of those classes. But if the person is evil-aligned, they are embracing the worst aspects of the class, not the best. And the worst aspects of those classes are really bad. A good or neutral assassin is an avenger, fighting evil creatures and villains. An evil assassin murders good creatures and innocents. The latter flags for detect evil. The former doesn't. A good or neutral dread pirate is an honorable swashbuckler, even a Robin Hood-like figure. An evil dread pirate is a scourge of the seas that deals in slaves and rapes and murders innocent people. These classes are flavored towards committing evil and violent actions against sapient beings, and while not every member of the class is evil because some restrain themselves only to those that deserve it, if someone is evil, then it's significantly more likely they are embracing the evil parts. Hence why someone who is both Evil-aligned and has the class can be reasonably assumed to commit enough regular evil of serious-enough degree that an automated script doesn't need to know all of the details to give an evil reading.

Again, that is why a good or neutral aligned drow would not flag it, but an evil-aligned drow would. Because drow as a race and culture are evil and commit very evil actions on a daily business ... if a drow is evil-aligned, it can be reasonably assumed they are participating in all the worst aspects of drow society. But simply being a drow is not enough by itself. Just like the above-mentioned classes.

[Deathgrowl]

No, I get that you are saying it's the combination of the class and the alignment. But that means there is something intrinsic to that class that combined with evil makes it ping off on Detect Evil, whereas other classes don't despite the evil alignment of the character.

My point is that the rationale for choosing these classes isn't something that seems to hold water. Lets take Assassin for example: The rationale for why this is chosen is that it's a class that specifically is designed around killing people. This is inprecise, however. Barbarian, fighter, monk (with the ability Quivering Palm, specifically designed to kill), Arcane Archer (Arrow of Death), and many others are also designed around killing people. What sets assassin apart, is that it is - indeed - assassination. But as mentioned, that doesn't come with good or evil connotations. So what is intrinsic to the assassin class (in our implementation of it as any alignment) that makes it + evil alignment trigger detect evil when these other examples don't?

[Steve]

If Detect “Alignment” is going IG, why should it NOT function exactly as the 3.5 Rules describe?

[Kitunenotsume]

I am looking forwards to this implementation. It seems quite thorough and comprehensive for most circumstances, without being specifically incriminating at an OOC level.

Thank you for the work you are putting in Rhifox.

Addendum:
After some consideration, I suspect that the differences in opinion above stem from the concept of false positives and negatives.
As currently drafted, both false positives (Holding an aligned item) and false negatives (posessing an alignment while having a 'mundane' class) are on the table.
I reason that the complaint is that only one or the other should exist, and that False Positives are the likely superior option.

As such, an evil character should register as evil, but faintly, and on par or perhaps less than a goody aligned character who recently cast an Evil spell, performed an Evil act, or is holding an Evil item.
As demonstration for items presenting false positives, I refer to OoTS: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html

Thus, both a Good character holding an Evil item, and an Evil character holding a Good item detect both as Good and Evil, when subjected to the appropriate spells, but possibly to different magnitudes.

[renshouj]

If Detect “Alignment” is going IG, why should it NOT function exactly as the 3.5 Rules describe?

Probably because if it simply detects "evil alignment" instead of the double confirmation that Rhi proposed, it would be a very unhealthy addition to the game. THEN people would use it excessively and likely even meta. Use it like how people used Smite Evil. With how Rhifox is currently proposing it, I see it as a useful tool for those that care about it, but not an end-all be-all. Since it requires double confirmation, it is less gamey from an OOC standpoint, and gives characters more flexibility.

Detect Evil as 3.5 would be great if DM supervision was 24/7. But it's not. And because of that, the way Rhi is intending to implement it works better without DM supervision. It doesn't ruin infiltration RP (since people will have access to either spells or amulets), it gives more challenge and an extra, in my opinion interesting, mechanic that directly deepens RP.

Also, I do not think either false negatives or false positives should be removed. Things not being 100% accurate help eliminate meta sillyness. Though, if possible, I'd maybe argue that someone of Evil alignment with, lets say, 10 or below alignment points on the G-E axis, should give off an evil aura, even if faint, no matter the class.

[DaloLorn]

If Detect “Alignment” is going IG, why should it NOT function exactly as the 3.5 Rules describe?

Probably because if it simply detects "evil alignment" instead of the double confirmation that Rhi proposed, it would be a very unhealthy addition to the game. THEN people would use it excessively and likely even meta. Use it like how people used Smite Evil. With how Rhifox is currently proposing it, I see it as a useful tool for those that care about it, but not an end-all be-all. Since it requires double confirmation, it is less gamey from an OOC standpoint, and gives characters more flexibility.

Detect Evil as 3.5 would be great if DM supervision was 24/7. But it's not. And because of that, the way Rhi is intending to implement it works better without DM supervision. It doesn't ruin infiltration RP (since people will have access to either spells or amulets), it gives more challenge and an extra, in my opinion interesting, mechanic that directly deepens RP.

Also, I do not think either false negatives or false positives should be removed. Things not being 100% accurate help eliminate meta sillyness. Though, if possible, I'd maybe argue that someone of Evil alignment with, lets say, 10 or below alignment points on the G-E axis, should give off an evil aura, even if faint, no matter the class.

I agree with all of this. False readings can be more conducive to RP than guaranteed accurate readings. (I can only imagine what Ilhara's reaction might be if she pinged evil...)

That being said, from an IC perspective, someone with an extremely evil alignment would probably pretty consistently flag as evil, so I agree with the suggestion at the bottom of Renshouj's post, too.