Does the Detect Evil and Good spell let the player know what kind of ground (consecrated or desecrated) they have found?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
In D&D 5e, the detect evil and good spell states that:
For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.
To me, it's unclear whether, if the caster detected some consecrated ground, it would be possible for them to mistake it for desecrated? Or vice versa? Do they just know that this ground has been touched by the gods, or specifically whether there were good or evil ones?
I'm not asking with regards to a specific situation that happened in play; I'm just curious how it should go as intended by the game writers.
dnd-5e spells
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
In D&D 5e, the detect evil and good spell states that:
For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.
To me, it's unclear whether, if the caster detected some consecrated ground, it would be possible for them to mistake it for desecrated? Or vice versa? Do they just know that this ground has been touched by the gods, or specifically whether there were good or evil ones?
I'm not asking with regards to a specific situation that happened in play; I'm just curious how it should go as intended by the game writers.
dnd-5e spells
New contributor
The wording in your quote is wrong, but I don't think it clarifies the thing you're confused about. I'll edit in the fixed quote.
– V2Blast
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
In D&D 5e, the detect evil and good spell states that:
For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.
To me, it's unclear whether, if the caster detected some consecrated ground, it would be possible for them to mistake it for desecrated? Or vice versa? Do they just know that this ground has been touched by the gods, or specifically whether there were good or evil ones?
I'm not asking with regards to a specific situation that happened in play; I'm just curious how it should go as intended by the game writers.
dnd-5e spells
New contributor
In D&D 5e, the detect evil and good spell states that:
For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.
To me, it's unclear whether, if the caster detected some consecrated ground, it would be possible for them to mistake it for desecrated? Or vice versa? Do they just know that this ground has been touched by the gods, or specifically whether there were good or evil ones?
I'm not asking with regards to a specific situation that happened in play; I'm just curious how it should go as intended by the game writers.
dnd-5e spells
dnd-5e spells
New contributor
New contributor
edited 3 hours ago
V2Blast
17.8k248113
17.8k248113
New contributor
asked 16 hours ago
Rugnir
23624
23624
New contributor
New contributor
The wording in your quote is wrong, but I don't think it clarifies the thing you're confused about. I'll edit in the fixed quote.
– V2Blast
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The wording in your quote is wrong, but I don't think it clarifies the thing you're confused about. I'll edit in the fixed quote.
– V2Blast
3 hours ago
The wording in your quote is wrong, but I don't think it clarifies the thing you're confused about. I'll edit in the fixed quote.
– V2Blast
3 hours ago
The wording in your quote is wrong, but I don't think it clarifies the thing you're confused about. I'll edit in the fixed quote.
– V2Blast
3 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
19
down vote
In the strictest RAW, it unclear, but reasonable RAI would mean a yes.
RAW
"Spells only do what they say they do."
The spell says you can locate the ground, not that you can identify it as consecrated vs desecrated. However, you could also read it as being able to locate consecrated ground, and being to locate desecrated ground, in which case the answer would be yes.
RAI
Definitely. First, what would the point of a detection spell named Detect Good and Evil be if it didn't tell you what you detected was good or evil? If you wanted to just see magic, you could use detect magic. Second, in 3.5 edition, the spell Detect Evil was actually based on alignment.
A good comparison would be against the language in the Paladin's Divine Sense ability.
– NautArch
14 hours ago
3
By "RAI" do you mean "Rules as Intended"? If so, what is your source (beyond your personal interpretation) for claiming that the designers intended the spell to work that way? It might be a harmless houserule, but you don't seem to make the case for it being the intended meaning.
– Rubiksmoose
14 hours ago
3
-1 I don't think you can take a a reading of it as 'locate consecrated ground or locate desecrated ground' like you say under your RAW section. The object of the rule sentence is “a place or object” that meets the condition of having “been magically consecrated or desecrated”. So you have a single mode of identification that will ID a place that meets either criteria, rather than two methods that identify a place that meets one of the criteria.
– A Very Large Bear
13 hours ago
1
To follow on from @Rubiksmoose on the intended - a fair reason would be (IIRC) there's no other way (bar Wish, I guess) to tell consecrated vs desecrated. Clerics couldn't be sure their own temples were consecrated to their own gods, which seems a little daft and quite the oversight
– Cyberspark
13 hours ago
1
@Rubiksmoose The spell does say "magically consecrated or desecrated", so presumably any consecrated or desecrated ground that could be detected by this spell would also be detected by detect magic.
– Ryan Thompson
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
RAW: You do not know whether it is consecrated or desecrated
For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located.
Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.
As written, the spell does not allow for determining the difference between consecrated and desecrated only detecting the presence and location of either. All it says is: if [there is a consecrated or desecrated place within 30 feet] then [you are able to locate it].
In 5e, spells do only what they say they do and the spell does not allow any way to differentiate the two types of places, it detects both. It doesn't even say that you get to choose one to look for when you cast it. If the spell allowed you to tell the difference between the two it would say so.
The same thing applies to the first part of the spell as well.
You can't tell what precise creature type something is, only that it falls into that list and are able to locate it.
Other features have wording (which this spell does not) that specifically allows for this
Compare this to Divine Sense (the paladin ability) which specifically allows you to know the type of creatures:
Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover. You know the type (celestial, fiend, or undead) of any being whose presence you sense, but not its identity (the vampire Count Strahd von Zarovich, for instance).
The first part of this ability is almost identical to the wording of detect good and evil, yet the ability still needs that second sentence to allow it to specifically identify the type.
See also detect poison and disease which also has the language allowing the poisons to be identified.
For the duration, you can sense the presence and location of poisons, poisonous creatures, and diseases within 30 feet of you. You also identify the kind of poison, poisonous creature, or disease in each case.
If detect good and evil was intended to work this way, it would have included a similar specification.
The spell is named poorly, but that doesn't change how it works
Some spells' names are confusing or downright deceptive1, but that doesn't change what the spells' descriptions say they do. In this case for example, detect good and evil doesn't detect alignment at all, but it senses creature types often associated with some alignments as well as objects and places that have been touched by divine power. Other than that it does do what it says: detect. The spell detects all of these things and allows them to be located. Nothing in the spell indicates or even implies that you can differentiate between the things that are found.
Rules as Fun: Harmless to allow as a houserule
Besides potentially stepping on the toes of the paladin feature Divine Sense, there really is nothing that would break by allowing the caster to know the type of creature or if ground was consecrated or desecrated. It would be a small boost in utility, but certainly nothing to be super concerned about. We play it this way at my table and have had no issues.
If your campaign plot is full of fiends pretending to be celestials (for example) or your plot is fragile to such abilities obviously you should see caution in adopting it.
Just note that this would be a houserule so not really allowable at Adventurers League tables or other tables that strictly adhere to RAW.
1 - A few examples: Catnap, does not put creatures to sleep. Sacred flame does not do fire damage. Chill touch does not do cold damage and is also not a touch spell. Daylight does not actually create sunlight.
That houserule might actually break a lot of plots though. RAW you can tell that the creature offering you advice is indeed an aligned creature, but you can't actually tell if it's really a celestial, or a lich using disguise self. This is probably a reaction to people using the detect alignment spells in previous editions to unambiguously identify the bad guys and shouldn't be undone lightly.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
@Perkins I can see this potentially being an issue, but the issue of a creature type on that list pretending to be another creature type on that list is a very specific concern. I think it's valid but unlikely to occur in my experience.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
It probably depends on the kind of campaign you're running. Any aberration, fiend, or undead who wants to be publicly visible and doesn't make at least a token attempt to disguise himself as one of the "good" things on the list is either extremely powerful or extremely stupid given that he could easily be "outed" by a 1st level spell if he just goes with mundane disguises, and somebody's definitely going to do that at some point if he starts doing anything at all questionable.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
@Perkins certainly it's going to be very campaign dependent. If that's the case, the DM should definitely not adopt the house rule. Luckily they just have to go by the RAW which is easy. To be fair there are other features which would also have this effect (divine sense) that are not house rules. So I don't see this as too huge of an issue either way.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
1
The corrected wording for the spell (which v2blast edited into the OP) changes the interpretation of the spell text (IMO). It might be worth addressing this difference to your quote.
– illustro
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
You can't tell the difference because there is no (mechanical) difference
In order to answer this question, we have to ask exactly what "consecrated" and "desecrated" mean in terms of game mechanics. The only place I can find any explanation is in the Paladin's Divine Sense:
Within the same radius, you also detect the presence of any place or object that has been consecrated or desecrated, as with the hallow spell.
From this, it seems that the hallow spell is the way to consecrate or desecrate something. So, what does the spell's text have to say about consecration and desecration? Well... nothing. At least, not directly. But depending on the parameters you choose when casting hallow, you could have an area that protects all within it from being frightened and does not allow undead or fiends to enter. That sounds a lot like consecration. Or you could have an area that causes vulnerability to necrotic damage and prevents celestials from entering. This sounds a lot like desecration.
The point is that in practice, both consecrated and desecrated ground mean the same thing: that someone cast a hallow spell there. Whether the hallowed area is consecrated or desecrated is merely a matter of opinion with no mechanical import. Hence, detect evil and good can't discern any difference between the two because there is no difference to be discerned. The person who cast the hallow spell would most likely say they had consecrated the area, while a cleric of an opposing faith would accuse them of desecrating it.
Of course, the DM of a campaign is free to invent other ways to consecrate or desecrate an area besides the hallow spell, and they are free to consider consecration and desecration as distinct states within their game world. If they do decide to make a mechanical distinction between the two, it would also make sense for them to rule that detect evil and good (as well as a Paladin's Divine Sense and other similar abilities) can detect the difference. Even if the DM does not make any objective distinction, it would not be unreasonable to rule that when you detect hallowed ground, you get a sense of your deity's subjective opinion on whether it is consecrated or desecrated.
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
19
down vote
In the strictest RAW, it unclear, but reasonable RAI would mean a yes.
RAW
"Spells only do what they say they do."
The spell says you can locate the ground, not that you can identify it as consecrated vs desecrated. However, you could also read it as being able to locate consecrated ground, and being to locate desecrated ground, in which case the answer would be yes.
RAI
Definitely. First, what would the point of a detection spell named Detect Good and Evil be if it didn't tell you what you detected was good or evil? If you wanted to just see magic, you could use detect magic. Second, in 3.5 edition, the spell Detect Evil was actually based on alignment.
A good comparison would be against the language in the Paladin's Divine Sense ability.
– NautArch
14 hours ago
3
By "RAI" do you mean "Rules as Intended"? If so, what is your source (beyond your personal interpretation) for claiming that the designers intended the spell to work that way? It might be a harmless houserule, but you don't seem to make the case for it being the intended meaning.
– Rubiksmoose
14 hours ago
3
-1 I don't think you can take a a reading of it as 'locate consecrated ground or locate desecrated ground' like you say under your RAW section. The object of the rule sentence is “a place or object” that meets the condition of having “been magically consecrated or desecrated”. So you have a single mode of identification that will ID a place that meets either criteria, rather than two methods that identify a place that meets one of the criteria.
– A Very Large Bear
13 hours ago
1
To follow on from @Rubiksmoose on the intended - a fair reason would be (IIRC) there's no other way (bar Wish, I guess) to tell consecrated vs desecrated. Clerics couldn't be sure their own temples were consecrated to their own gods, which seems a little daft and quite the oversight
– Cyberspark
13 hours ago
1
@Rubiksmoose The spell does say "magically consecrated or desecrated", so presumably any consecrated or desecrated ground that could be detected by this spell would also be detected by detect magic.
– Ryan Thompson
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
19
down vote
In the strictest RAW, it unclear, but reasonable RAI would mean a yes.
RAW
"Spells only do what they say they do."
The spell says you can locate the ground, not that you can identify it as consecrated vs desecrated. However, you could also read it as being able to locate consecrated ground, and being to locate desecrated ground, in which case the answer would be yes.
RAI
Definitely. First, what would the point of a detection spell named Detect Good and Evil be if it didn't tell you what you detected was good or evil? If you wanted to just see magic, you could use detect magic. Second, in 3.5 edition, the spell Detect Evil was actually based on alignment.
A good comparison would be against the language in the Paladin's Divine Sense ability.
– NautArch
14 hours ago
3
By "RAI" do you mean "Rules as Intended"? If so, what is your source (beyond your personal interpretation) for claiming that the designers intended the spell to work that way? It might be a harmless houserule, but you don't seem to make the case for it being the intended meaning.
– Rubiksmoose
14 hours ago
3
-1 I don't think you can take a a reading of it as 'locate consecrated ground or locate desecrated ground' like you say under your RAW section. The object of the rule sentence is “a place or object” that meets the condition of having “been magically consecrated or desecrated”. So you have a single mode of identification that will ID a place that meets either criteria, rather than two methods that identify a place that meets one of the criteria.
– A Very Large Bear
13 hours ago
1
To follow on from @Rubiksmoose on the intended - a fair reason would be (IIRC) there's no other way (bar Wish, I guess) to tell consecrated vs desecrated. Clerics couldn't be sure their own temples were consecrated to their own gods, which seems a little daft and quite the oversight
– Cyberspark
13 hours ago
1
@Rubiksmoose The spell does say "magically consecrated or desecrated", so presumably any consecrated or desecrated ground that could be detected by this spell would also be detected by detect magic.
– Ryan Thompson
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
19
down vote
up vote
19
down vote
In the strictest RAW, it unclear, but reasonable RAI would mean a yes.
RAW
"Spells only do what they say they do."
The spell says you can locate the ground, not that you can identify it as consecrated vs desecrated. However, you could also read it as being able to locate consecrated ground, and being to locate desecrated ground, in which case the answer would be yes.
RAI
Definitely. First, what would the point of a detection spell named Detect Good and Evil be if it didn't tell you what you detected was good or evil? If you wanted to just see magic, you could use detect magic. Second, in 3.5 edition, the spell Detect Evil was actually based on alignment.
In the strictest RAW, it unclear, but reasonable RAI would mean a yes.
RAW
"Spells only do what they say they do."
The spell says you can locate the ground, not that you can identify it as consecrated vs desecrated. However, you could also read it as being able to locate consecrated ground, and being to locate desecrated ground, in which case the answer would be yes.
RAI
Definitely. First, what would the point of a detection spell named Detect Good and Evil be if it didn't tell you what you detected was good or evil? If you wanted to just see magic, you could use detect magic. Second, in 3.5 edition, the spell Detect Evil was actually based on alignment.
edited 15 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
42.8k5212326
42.8k5212326
answered 15 hours ago
qazwsx
49610
49610
A good comparison would be against the language in the Paladin's Divine Sense ability.
– NautArch
14 hours ago
3
By "RAI" do you mean "Rules as Intended"? If so, what is your source (beyond your personal interpretation) for claiming that the designers intended the spell to work that way? It might be a harmless houserule, but you don't seem to make the case for it being the intended meaning.
– Rubiksmoose
14 hours ago
3
-1 I don't think you can take a a reading of it as 'locate consecrated ground or locate desecrated ground' like you say under your RAW section. The object of the rule sentence is “a place or object” that meets the condition of having “been magically consecrated or desecrated”. So you have a single mode of identification that will ID a place that meets either criteria, rather than two methods that identify a place that meets one of the criteria.
– A Very Large Bear
13 hours ago
1
To follow on from @Rubiksmoose on the intended - a fair reason would be (IIRC) there's no other way (bar Wish, I guess) to tell consecrated vs desecrated. Clerics couldn't be sure their own temples were consecrated to their own gods, which seems a little daft and quite the oversight
– Cyberspark
13 hours ago
1
@Rubiksmoose The spell does say "magically consecrated or desecrated", so presumably any consecrated or desecrated ground that could be detected by this spell would also be detected by detect magic.
– Ryan Thompson
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
A good comparison would be against the language in the Paladin's Divine Sense ability.
– NautArch
14 hours ago
3
By "RAI" do you mean "Rules as Intended"? If so, what is your source (beyond your personal interpretation) for claiming that the designers intended the spell to work that way? It might be a harmless houserule, but you don't seem to make the case for it being the intended meaning.
– Rubiksmoose
14 hours ago
3
-1 I don't think you can take a a reading of it as 'locate consecrated ground or locate desecrated ground' like you say under your RAW section. The object of the rule sentence is “a place or object” that meets the condition of having “been magically consecrated or desecrated”. So you have a single mode of identification that will ID a place that meets either criteria, rather than two methods that identify a place that meets one of the criteria.
– A Very Large Bear
13 hours ago
1
To follow on from @Rubiksmoose on the intended - a fair reason would be (IIRC) there's no other way (bar Wish, I guess) to tell consecrated vs desecrated. Clerics couldn't be sure their own temples were consecrated to their own gods, which seems a little daft and quite the oversight
– Cyberspark
13 hours ago
1
@Rubiksmoose The spell does say "magically consecrated or desecrated", so presumably any consecrated or desecrated ground that could be detected by this spell would also be detected by detect magic.
– Ryan Thompson
8 hours ago
A good comparison would be against the language in the Paladin's Divine Sense ability.
– NautArch
14 hours ago
A good comparison would be against the language in the Paladin's Divine Sense ability.
– NautArch
14 hours ago
3
3
By "RAI" do you mean "Rules as Intended"? If so, what is your source (beyond your personal interpretation) for claiming that the designers intended the spell to work that way? It might be a harmless houserule, but you don't seem to make the case for it being the intended meaning.
– Rubiksmoose
14 hours ago
By "RAI" do you mean "Rules as Intended"? If so, what is your source (beyond your personal interpretation) for claiming that the designers intended the spell to work that way? It might be a harmless houserule, but you don't seem to make the case for it being the intended meaning.
– Rubiksmoose
14 hours ago
3
3
-1 I don't think you can take a a reading of it as 'locate consecrated ground or locate desecrated ground' like you say under your RAW section. The object of the rule sentence is “a place or object” that meets the condition of having “been magically consecrated or desecrated”. So you have a single mode of identification that will ID a place that meets either criteria, rather than two methods that identify a place that meets one of the criteria.
– A Very Large Bear
13 hours ago
-1 I don't think you can take a a reading of it as 'locate consecrated ground or locate desecrated ground' like you say under your RAW section. The object of the rule sentence is “a place or object” that meets the condition of having “been magically consecrated or desecrated”. So you have a single mode of identification that will ID a place that meets either criteria, rather than two methods that identify a place that meets one of the criteria.
– A Very Large Bear
13 hours ago
1
1
To follow on from @Rubiksmoose on the intended - a fair reason would be (IIRC) there's no other way (bar Wish, I guess) to tell consecrated vs desecrated. Clerics couldn't be sure their own temples were consecrated to their own gods, which seems a little daft and quite the oversight
– Cyberspark
13 hours ago
To follow on from @Rubiksmoose on the intended - a fair reason would be (IIRC) there's no other way (bar Wish, I guess) to tell consecrated vs desecrated. Clerics couldn't be sure their own temples were consecrated to their own gods, which seems a little daft and quite the oversight
– Cyberspark
13 hours ago
1
1
@Rubiksmoose The spell does say "magically consecrated or desecrated", so presumably any consecrated or desecrated ground that could be detected by this spell would also be detected by detect magic.
– Ryan Thompson
8 hours ago
@Rubiksmoose The spell does say "magically consecrated or desecrated", so presumably any consecrated or desecrated ground that could be detected by this spell would also be detected by detect magic.
– Ryan Thompson
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
RAW: You do not know whether it is consecrated or desecrated
For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located.
Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.
As written, the spell does not allow for determining the difference between consecrated and desecrated only detecting the presence and location of either. All it says is: if [there is a consecrated or desecrated place within 30 feet] then [you are able to locate it].
In 5e, spells do only what they say they do and the spell does not allow any way to differentiate the two types of places, it detects both. It doesn't even say that you get to choose one to look for when you cast it. If the spell allowed you to tell the difference between the two it would say so.
The same thing applies to the first part of the spell as well.
You can't tell what precise creature type something is, only that it falls into that list and are able to locate it.
Other features have wording (which this spell does not) that specifically allows for this
Compare this to Divine Sense (the paladin ability) which specifically allows you to know the type of creatures:
Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover. You know the type (celestial, fiend, or undead) of any being whose presence you sense, but not its identity (the vampire Count Strahd von Zarovich, for instance).
The first part of this ability is almost identical to the wording of detect good and evil, yet the ability still needs that second sentence to allow it to specifically identify the type.
See also detect poison and disease which also has the language allowing the poisons to be identified.
For the duration, you can sense the presence and location of poisons, poisonous creatures, and diseases within 30 feet of you. You also identify the kind of poison, poisonous creature, or disease in each case.
If detect good and evil was intended to work this way, it would have included a similar specification.
The spell is named poorly, but that doesn't change how it works
Some spells' names are confusing or downright deceptive1, but that doesn't change what the spells' descriptions say they do. In this case for example, detect good and evil doesn't detect alignment at all, but it senses creature types often associated with some alignments as well as objects and places that have been touched by divine power. Other than that it does do what it says: detect. The spell detects all of these things and allows them to be located. Nothing in the spell indicates or even implies that you can differentiate between the things that are found.
Rules as Fun: Harmless to allow as a houserule
Besides potentially stepping on the toes of the paladin feature Divine Sense, there really is nothing that would break by allowing the caster to know the type of creature or if ground was consecrated or desecrated. It would be a small boost in utility, but certainly nothing to be super concerned about. We play it this way at my table and have had no issues.
If your campaign plot is full of fiends pretending to be celestials (for example) or your plot is fragile to such abilities obviously you should see caution in adopting it.
Just note that this would be a houserule so not really allowable at Adventurers League tables or other tables that strictly adhere to RAW.
1 - A few examples: Catnap, does not put creatures to sleep. Sacred flame does not do fire damage. Chill touch does not do cold damage and is also not a touch spell. Daylight does not actually create sunlight.
That houserule might actually break a lot of plots though. RAW you can tell that the creature offering you advice is indeed an aligned creature, but you can't actually tell if it's really a celestial, or a lich using disguise self. This is probably a reaction to people using the detect alignment spells in previous editions to unambiguously identify the bad guys and shouldn't be undone lightly.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
@Perkins I can see this potentially being an issue, but the issue of a creature type on that list pretending to be another creature type on that list is a very specific concern. I think it's valid but unlikely to occur in my experience.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
It probably depends on the kind of campaign you're running. Any aberration, fiend, or undead who wants to be publicly visible and doesn't make at least a token attempt to disguise himself as one of the "good" things on the list is either extremely powerful or extremely stupid given that he could easily be "outed" by a 1st level spell if he just goes with mundane disguises, and somebody's definitely going to do that at some point if he starts doing anything at all questionable.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
@Perkins certainly it's going to be very campaign dependent. If that's the case, the DM should definitely not adopt the house rule. Luckily they just have to go by the RAW which is easy. To be fair there are other features which would also have this effect (divine sense) that are not house rules. So I don't see this as too huge of an issue either way.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
1
The corrected wording for the spell (which v2blast edited into the OP) changes the interpretation of the spell text (IMO). It might be worth addressing this difference to your quote.
– illustro
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
15
down vote
RAW: You do not know whether it is consecrated or desecrated
For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located.
Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.
As written, the spell does not allow for determining the difference between consecrated and desecrated only detecting the presence and location of either. All it says is: if [there is a consecrated or desecrated place within 30 feet] then [you are able to locate it].
In 5e, spells do only what they say they do and the spell does not allow any way to differentiate the two types of places, it detects both. It doesn't even say that you get to choose one to look for when you cast it. If the spell allowed you to tell the difference between the two it would say so.
The same thing applies to the first part of the spell as well.
You can't tell what precise creature type something is, only that it falls into that list and are able to locate it.
Other features have wording (which this spell does not) that specifically allows for this
Compare this to Divine Sense (the paladin ability) which specifically allows you to know the type of creatures:
Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover. You know the type (celestial, fiend, or undead) of any being whose presence you sense, but not its identity (the vampire Count Strahd von Zarovich, for instance).
The first part of this ability is almost identical to the wording of detect good and evil, yet the ability still needs that second sentence to allow it to specifically identify the type.
See also detect poison and disease which also has the language allowing the poisons to be identified.
For the duration, you can sense the presence and location of poisons, poisonous creatures, and diseases within 30 feet of you. You also identify the kind of poison, poisonous creature, or disease in each case.
If detect good and evil was intended to work this way, it would have included a similar specification.
The spell is named poorly, but that doesn't change how it works
Some spells' names are confusing or downright deceptive1, but that doesn't change what the spells' descriptions say they do. In this case for example, detect good and evil doesn't detect alignment at all, but it senses creature types often associated with some alignments as well as objects and places that have been touched by divine power. Other than that it does do what it says: detect. The spell detects all of these things and allows them to be located. Nothing in the spell indicates or even implies that you can differentiate between the things that are found.
Rules as Fun: Harmless to allow as a houserule
Besides potentially stepping on the toes of the paladin feature Divine Sense, there really is nothing that would break by allowing the caster to know the type of creature or if ground was consecrated or desecrated. It would be a small boost in utility, but certainly nothing to be super concerned about. We play it this way at my table and have had no issues.
If your campaign plot is full of fiends pretending to be celestials (for example) or your plot is fragile to such abilities obviously you should see caution in adopting it.
Just note that this would be a houserule so not really allowable at Adventurers League tables or other tables that strictly adhere to RAW.
1 - A few examples: Catnap, does not put creatures to sleep. Sacred flame does not do fire damage. Chill touch does not do cold damage and is also not a touch spell. Daylight does not actually create sunlight.
That houserule might actually break a lot of plots though. RAW you can tell that the creature offering you advice is indeed an aligned creature, but you can't actually tell if it's really a celestial, or a lich using disguise self. This is probably a reaction to people using the detect alignment spells in previous editions to unambiguously identify the bad guys and shouldn't be undone lightly.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
@Perkins I can see this potentially being an issue, but the issue of a creature type on that list pretending to be another creature type on that list is a very specific concern. I think it's valid but unlikely to occur in my experience.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
It probably depends on the kind of campaign you're running. Any aberration, fiend, or undead who wants to be publicly visible and doesn't make at least a token attempt to disguise himself as one of the "good" things on the list is either extremely powerful or extremely stupid given that he could easily be "outed" by a 1st level spell if he just goes with mundane disguises, and somebody's definitely going to do that at some point if he starts doing anything at all questionable.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
@Perkins certainly it's going to be very campaign dependent. If that's the case, the DM should definitely not adopt the house rule. Luckily they just have to go by the RAW which is easy. To be fair there are other features which would also have this effect (divine sense) that are not house rules. So I don't see this as too huge of an issue either way.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
1
The corrected wording for the spell (which v2blast edited into the OP) changes the interpretation of the spell text (IMO). It might be worth addressing this difference to your quote.
– illustro
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
15
down vote
up vote
15
down vote
RAW: You do not know whether it is consecrated or desecrated
For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located.
Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.
As written, the spell does not allow for determining the difference between consecrated and desecrated only detecting the presence and location of either. All it says is: if [there is a consecrated or desecrated place within 30 feet] then [you are able to locate it].
In 5e, spells do only what they say they do and the spell does not allow any way to differentiate the two types of places, it detects both. It doesn't even say that you get to choose one to look for when you cast it. If the spell allowed you to tell the difference between the two it would say so.
The same thing applies to the first part of the spell as well.
You can't tell what precise creature type something is, only that it falls into that list and are able to locate it.
Other features have wording (which this spell does not) that specifically allows for this
Compare this to Divine Sense (the paladin ability) which specifically allows you to know the type of creatures:
Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover. You know the type (celestial, fiend, or undead) of any being whose presence you sense, but not its identity (the vampire Count Strahd von Zarovich, for instance).
The first part of this ability is almost identical to the wording of detect good and evil, yet the ability still needs that second sentence to allow it to specifically identify the type.
See also detect poison and disease which also has the language allowing the poisons to be identified.
For the duration, you can sense the presence and location of poisons, poisonous creatures, and diseases within 30 feet of you. You also identify the kind of poison, poisonous creature, or disease in each case.
If detect good and evil was intended to work this way, it would have included a similar specification.
The spell is named poorly, but that doesn't change how it works
Some spells' names are confusing or downright deceptive1, but that doesn't change what the spells' descriptions say they do. In this case for example, detect good and evil doesn't detect alignment at all, but it senses creature types often associated with some alignments as well as objects and places that have been touched by divine power. Other than that it does do what it says: detect. The spell detects all of these things and allows them to be located. Nothing in the spell indicates or even implies that you can differentiate between the things that are found.
Rules as Fun: Harmless to allow as a houserule
Besides potentially stepping on the toes of the paladin feature Divine Sense, there really is nothing that would break by allowing the caster to know the type of creature or if ground was consecrated or desecrated. It would be a small boost in utility, but certainly nothing to be super concerned about. We play it this way at my table and have had no issues.
If your campaign plot is full of fiends pretending to be celestials (for example) or your plot is fragile to such abilities obviously you should see caution in adopting it.
Just note that this would be a houserule so not really allowable at Adventurers League tables or other tables that strictly adhere to RAW.
1 - A few examples: Catnap, does not put creatures to sleep. Sacred flame does not do fire damage. Chill touch does not do cold damage and is also not a touch spell. Daylight does not actually create sunlight.
RAW: You do not know whether it is consecrated or desecrated
For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located.
Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.
As written, the spell does not allow for determining the difference between consecrated and desecrated only detecting the presence and location of either. All it says is: if [there is a consecrated or desecrated place within 30 feet] then [you are able to locate it].
In 5e, spells do only what they say they do and the spell does not allow any way to differentiate the two types of places, it detects both. It doesn't even say that you get to choose one to look for when you cast it. If the spell allowed you to tell the difference between the two it would say so.
The same thing applies to the first part of the spell as well.
You can't tell what precise creature type something is, only that it falls into that list and are able to locate it.
Other features have wording (which this spell does not) that specifically allows for this
Compare this to Divine Sense (the paladin ability) which specifically allows you to know the type of creatures:
Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover. You know the type (celestial, fiend, or undead) of any being whose presence you sense, but not its identity (the vampire Count Strahd von Zarovich, for instance).
The first part of this ability is almost identical to the wording of detect good and evil, yet the ability still needs that second sentence to allow it to specifically identify the type.
See also detect poison and disease which also has the language allowing the poisons to be identified.
For the duration, you can sense the presence and location of poisons, poisonous creatures, and diseases within 30 feet of you. You also identify the kind of poison, poisonous creature, or disease in each case.
If detect good and evil was intended to work this way, it would have included a similar specification.
The spell is named poorly, but that doesn't change how it works
Some spells' names are confusing or downright deceptive1, but that doesn't change what the spells' descriptions say they do. In this case for example, detect good and evil doesn't detect alignment at all, but it senses creature types often associated with some alignments as well as objects and places that have been touched by divine power. Other than that it does do what it says: detect. The spell detects all of these things and allows them to be located. Nothing in the spell indicates or even implies that you can differentiate between the things that are found.
Rules as Fun: Harmless to allow as a houserule
Besides potentially stepping on the toes of the paladin feature Divine Sense, there really is nothing that would break by allowing the caster to know the type of creature or if ground was consecrated or desecrated. It would be a small boost in utility, but certainly nothing to be super concerned about. We play it this way at my table and have had no issues.
If your campaign plot is full of fiends pretending to be celestials (for example) or your plot is fragile to such abilities obviously you should see caution in adopting it.
Just note that this would be a houserule so not really allowable at Adventurers League tables or other tables that strictly adhere to RAW.
1 - A few examples: Catnap, does not put creatures to sleep. Sacred flame does not do fire damage. Chill touch does not do cold damage and is also not a touch spell. Daylight does not actually create sunlight.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 15 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
42.8k5212326
42.8k5212326
That houserule might actually break a lot of plots though. RAW you can tell that the creature offering you advice is indeed an aligned creature, but you can't actually tell if it's really a celestial, or a lich using disguise self. This is probably a reaction to people using the detect alignment spells in previous editions to unambiguously identify the bad guys and shouldn't be undone lightly.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
@Perkins I can see this potentially being an issue, but the issue of a creature type on that list pretending to be another creature type on that list is a very specific concern. I think it's valid but unlikely to occur in my experience.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
It probably depends on the kind of campaign you're running. Any aberration, fiend, or undead who wants to be publicly visible and doesn't make at least a token attempt to disguise himself as one of the "good" things on the list is either extremely powerful or extremely stupid given that he could easily be "outed" by a 1st level spell if he just goes with mundane disguises, and somebody's definitely going to do that at some point if he starts doing anything at all questionable.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
@Perkins certainly it's going to be very campaign dependent. If that's the case, the DM should definitely not adopt the house rule. Luckily they just have to go by the RAW which is easy. To be fair there are other features which would also have this effect (divine sense) that are not house rules. So I don't see this as too huge of an issue either way.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
1
The corrected wording for the spell (which v2blast edited into the OP) changes the interpretation of the spell text (IMO). It might be worth addressing this difference to your quote.
– illustro
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
That houserule might actually break a lot of plots though. RAW you can tell that the creature offering you advice is indeed an aligned creature, but you can't actually tell if it's really a celestial, or a lich using disguise self. This is probably a reaction to people using the detect alignment spells in previous editions to unambiguously identify the bad guys and shouldn't be undone lightly.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
@Perkins I can see this potentially being an issue, but the issue of a creature type on that list pretending to be another creature type on that list is a very specific concern. I think it's valid but unlikely to occur in my experience.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
It probably depends on the kind of campaign you're running. Any aberration, fiend, or undead who wants to be publicly visible and doesn't make at least a token attempt to disguise himself as one of the "good" things on the list is either extremely powerful or extremely stupid given that he could easily be "outed" by a 1st level spell if he just goes with mundane disguises, and somebody's definitely going to do that at some point if he starts doing anything at all questionable.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
@Perkins certainly it's going to be very campaign dependent. If that's the case, the DM should definitely not adopt the house rule. Luckily they just have to go by the RAW which is easy. To be fair there are other features which would also have this effect (divine sense) that are not house rules. So I don't see this as too huge of an issue either way.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
1
The corrected wording for the spell (which v2blast edited into the OP) changes the interpretation of the spell text (IMO). It might be worth addressing this difference to your quote.
– illustro
3 hours ago
That houserule might actually break a lot of plots though. RAW you can tell that the creature offering you advice is indeed an aligned creature, but you can't actually tell if it's really a celestial, or a lich using disguise self. This is probably a reaction to people using the detect alignment spells in previous editions to unambiguously identify the bad guys and shouldn't be undone lightly.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
That houserule might actually break a lot of plots though. RAW you can tell that the creature offering you advice is indeed an aligned creature, but you can't actually tell if it's really a celestial, or a lich using disguise self. This is probably a reaction to people using the detect alignment spells in previous editions to unambiguously identify the bad guys and shouldn't be undone lightly.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
@Perkins I can see this potentially being an issue, but the issue of a creature type on that list pretending to be another creature type on that list is a very specific concern. I think it's valid but unlikely to occur in my experience.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
@Perkins I can see this potentially being an issue, but the issue of a creature type on that list pretending to be another creature type on that list is a very specific concern. I think it's valid but unlikely to occur in my experience.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
It probably depends on the kind of campaign you're running. Any aberration, fiend, or undead who wants to be publicly visible and doesn't make at least a token attempt to disguise himself as one of the "good" things on the list is either extremely powerful or extremely stupid given that he could easily be "outed" by a 1st level spell if he just goes with mundane disguises, and somebody's definitely going to do that at some point if he starts doing anything at all questionable.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
It probably depends on the kind of campaign you're running. Any aberration, fiend, or undead who wants to be publicly visible and doesn't make at least a token attempt to disguise himself as one of the "good" things on the list is either extremely powerful or extremely stupid given that he could easily be "outed" by a 1st level spell if he just goes with mundane disguises, and somebody's definitely going to do that at some point if he starts doing anything at all questionable.
– Perkins
6 hours ago
@Perkins certainly it's going to be very campaign dependent. If that's the case, the DM should definitely not adopt the house rule. Luckily they just have to go by the RAW which is easy. To be fair there are other features which would also have this effect (divine sense) that are not house rules. So I don't see this as too huge of an issue either way.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
@Perkins certainly it's going to be very campaign dependent. If that's the case, the DM should definitely not adopt the house rule. Luckily they just have to go by the RAW which is easy. To be fair there are other features which would also have this effect (divine sense) that are not house rules. So I don't see this as too huge of an issue either way.
– Rubiksmoose
6 hours ago
1
1
The corrected wording for the spell (which v2blast edited into the OP) changes the interpretation of the spell text (IMO). It might be worth addressing this difference to your quote.
– illustro
3 hours ago
The corrected wording for the spell (which v2blast edited into the OP) changes the interpretation of the spell text (IMO). It might be worth addressing this difference to your quote.
– illustro
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
You can't tell the difference because there is no (mechanical) difference
In order to answer this question, we have to ask exactly what "consecrated" and "desecrated" mean in terms of game mechanics. The only place I can find any explanation is in the Paladin's Divine Sense:
Within the same radius, you also detect the presence of any place or object that has been consecrated or desecrated, as with the hallow spell.
From this, it seems that the hallow spell is the way to consecrate or desecrate something. So, what does the spell's text have to say about consecration and desecration? Well... nothing. At least, not directly. But depending on the parameters you choose when casting hallow, you could have an area that protects all within it from being frightened and does not allow undead or fiends to enter. That sounds a lot like consecration. Or you could have an area that causes vulnerability to necrotic damage and prevents celestials from entering. This sounds a lot like desecration.
The point is that in practice, both consecrated and desecrated ground mean the same thing: that someone cast a hallow spell there. Whether the hallowed area is consecrated or desecrated is merely a matter of opinion with no mechanical import. Hence, detect evil and good can't discern any difference between the two because there is no difference to be discerned. The person who cast the hallow spell would most likely say they had consecrated the area, while a cleric of an opposing faith would accuse them of desecrating it.
Of course, the DM of a campaign is free to invent other ways to consecrate or desecrate an area besides the hallow spell, and they are free to consider consecration and desecration as distinct states within their game world. If they do decide to make a mechanical distinction between the two, it would also make sense for them to rule that detect evil and good (as well as a Paladin's Divine Sense and other similar abilities) can detect the difference. Even if the DM does not make any objective distinction, it would not be unreasonable to rule that when you detect hallowed ground, you get a sense of your deity's subjective opinion on whether it is consecrated or desecrated.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
You can't tell the difference because there is no (mechanical) difference
In order to answer this question, we have to ask exactly what "consecrated" and "desecrated" mean in terms of game mechanics. The only place I can find any explanation is in the Paladin's Divine Sense:
Within the same radius, you also detect the presence of any place or object that has been consecrated or desecrated, as with the hallow spell.
From this, it seems that the hallow spell is the way to consecrate or desecrate something. So, what does the spell's text have to say about consecration and desecration? Well... nothing. At least, not directly. But depending on the parameters you choose when casting hallow, you could have an area that protects all within it from being frightened and does not allow undead or fiends to enter. That sounds a lot like consecration. Or you could have an area that causes vulnerability to necrotic damage and prevents celestials from entering. This sounds a lot like desecration.
The point is that in practice, both consecrated and desecrated ground mean the same thing: that someone cast a hallow spell there. Whether the hallowed area is consecrated or desecrated is merely a matter of opinion with no mechanical import. Hence, detect evil and good can't discern any difference between the two because there is no difference to be discerned. The person who cast the hallow spell would most likely say they had consecrated the area, while a cleric of an opposing faith would accuse them of desecrating it.
Of course, the DM of a campaign is free to invent other ways to consecrate or desecrate an area besides the hallow spell, and they are free to consider consecration and desecration as distinct states within their game world. If they do decide to make a mechanical distinction between the two, it would also make sense for them to rule that detect evil and good (as well as a Paladin's Divine Sense and other similar abilities) can detect the difference. Even if the DM does not make any objective distinction, it would not be unreasonable to rule that when you detect hallowed ground, you get a sense of your deity's subjective opinion on whether it is consecrated or desecrated.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
You can't tell the difference because there is no (mechanical) difference
In order to answer this question, we have to ask exactly what "consecrated" and "desecrated" mean in terms of game mechanics. The only place I can find any explanation is in the Paladin's Divine Sense:
Within the same radius, you also detect the presence of any place or object that has been consecrated or desecrated, as with the hallow spell.
From this, it seems that the hallow spell is the way to consecrate or desecrate something. So, what does the spell's text have to say about consecration and desecration? Well... nothing. At least, not directly. But depending on the parameters you choose when casting hallow, you could have an area that protects all within it from being frightened and does not allow undead or fiends to enter. That sounds a lot like consecration. Or you could have an area that causes vulnerability to necrotic damage and prevents celestials from entering. This sounds a lot like desecration.
The point is that in practice, both consecrated and desecrated ground mean the same thing: that someone cast a hallow spell there. Whether the hallowed area is consecrated or desecrated is merely a matter of opinion with no mechanical import. Hence, detect evil and good can't discern any difference between the two because there is no difference to be discerned. The person who cast the hallow spell would most likely say they had consecrated the area, while a cleric of an opposing faith would accuse them of desecrating it.
Of course, the DM of a campaign is free to invent other ways to consecrate or desecrate an area besides the hallow spell, and they are free to consider consecration and desecration as distinct states within their game world. If they do decide to make a mechanical distinction between the two, it would also make sense for them to rule that detect evil and good (as well as a Paladin's Divine Sense and other similar abilities) can detect the difference. Even if the DM does not make any objective distinction, it would not be unreasonable to rule that when you detect hallowed ground, you get a sense of your deity's subjective opinion on whether it is consecrated or desecrated.
You can't tell the difference because there is no (mechanical) difference
In order to answer this question, we have to ask exactly what "consecrated" and "desecrated" mean in terms of game mechanics. The only place I can find any explanation is in the Paladin's Divine Sense:
Within the same radius, you also detect the presence of any place or object that has been consecrated or desecrated, as with the hallow spell.
From this, it seems that the hallow spell is the way to consecrate or desecrate something. So, what does the spell's text have to say about consecration and desecration? Well... nothing. At least, not directly. But depending on the parameters you choose when casting hallow, you could have an area that protects all within it from being frightened and does not allow undead or fiends to enter. That sounds a lot like consecration. Or you could have an area that causes vulnerability to necrotic damage and prevents celestials from entering. This sounds a lot like desecration.
The point is that in practice, both consecrated and desecrated ground mean the same thing: that someone cast a hallow spell there. Whether the hallowed area is consecrated or desecrated is merely a matter of opinion with no mechanical import. Hence, detect evil and good can't discern any difference between the two because there is no difference to be discerned. The person who cast the hallow spell would most likely say they had consecrated the area, while a cleric of an opposing faith would accuse them of desecrating it.
Of course, the DM of a campaign is free to invent other ways to consecrate or desecrate an area besides the hallow spell, and they are free to consider consecration and desecration as distinct states within their game world. If they do decide to make a mechanical distinction between the two, it would also make sense for them to rule that detect evil and good (as well as a Paladin's Divine Sense and other similar abilities) can detect the difference. Even if the DM does not make any objective distinction, it would not be unreasonable to rule that when you detect hallowed ground, you get a sense of your deity's subjective opinion on whether it is consecrated or desecrated.
edited 3 hours ago
V2Blast
17.8k248113
17.8k248113
answered 7 hours ago
Ryan Thompson
3,44211042
3,44211042
add a comment |
add a comment |
Rugnir is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Rugnir is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Rugnir is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Rugnir is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135359%2fdoes-the-detect-evil-and-good-spell-let-the-player-know-what-kind-of-ground-con%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
The wording in your quote is wrong, but I don't think it clarifies the thing you're confused about. I'll edit in the fixed quote.
– V2Blast
3 hours ago