Does the Detect Evil and Good spell let the player know what kind of ground (consecrated or desecrated) they...
up vote
30
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
30
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
1
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
19 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
up vote
30
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 19 hours ago
V2Blast
17.8k248113
17.8k248113
New contributor
asked yesterday
Rugnir
25134
25134
New contributor
New contributor
1
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
19 hours ago
add a comment |
1
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
19 hours ago
1
1
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
19 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
19 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
25
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.
4
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
yesterday
5
-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
yesterday
6
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
yesterday
1
You may want to update your answer based on the updated spell wording.
– Rubiksmoose
19 hours ago
1
@Cyberspark while I suppose this could be a separate question, its worth remarking that this is a pretty rubbish way to ensure that, as one good god could concecrate another's temple. And how do neutral gods/clerics manage?
– Rugnir
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
17
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.
Disagree. English is not math. Neither are the DND rules, no matter how hard people try to read them like a logic puzzle. Basic vernacular English is the default when no DND special term supersedes it, and 'consecrated or desecrated' means if consecrated, you can tell that. If desecrated, you can tell that, too. To say 'it's an OR statement, so it returns "True" in either case' is not a valid reading of standard English, it's a reading of a SQL statement.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
1
@MarkTO As an English speaker myself, you are wrong. At a generous reading, they are both perfectly natural and valid readings. However, my reading seems much more natural to me than the one you espouse is the "one true reading" of these words. You are perfectly able to write your own answer with that interpretation though. (seeing as none of the answers agree with that as of yet - the top answer also expressed my exact same ruling in their first section). I'm really not going to argue this point so please save any follow-ups for suggestions for improvement only.
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
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. This lack of explicit distinction between consecration and desecration is consistent with the overall downplaying of alignment-based mechanics in 5th Edition (e.g. the fact that detect evil and good detects creature types rather than alignments).
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.
English is not a programming language. Read it like an English sentence, not like query logic.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
1
@MarkTO Can you be more specific? Which sentence do you believe I've read incorrectly?
– Ryan Thompson
4 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
25
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.
4
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
yesterday
5
-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
yesterday
6
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
yesterday
1
You may want to update your answer based on the updated spell wording.
– Rubiksmoose
19 hours ago
1
@Cyberspark while I suppose this could be a separate question, its worth remarking that this is a pretty rubbish way to ensure that, as one good god could concecrate another's temple. And how do neutral gods/clerics manage?
– Rugnir
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
25
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.
4
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
yesterday
5
-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
yesterday
6
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
yesterday
1
You may want to update your answer based on the updated spell wording.
– Rubiksmoose
19 hours ago
1
@Cyberspark while I suppose this could be a separate question, its worth remarking that this is a pretty rubbish way to ensure that, as one good god could concecrate another's temple. And how do neutral gods/clerics manage?
– Rugnir
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
25
down vote
up vote
25
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 yesterday
Rubiksmoose
42.8k5213327
42.8k5213327
answered yesterday
qazwsx
55610
55610
4
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
yesterday
5
-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
yesterday
6
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
yesterday
1
You may want to update your answer based on the updated spell wording.
– Rubiksmoose
19 hours ago
1
@Cyberspark while I suppose this could be a separate question, its worth remarking that this is a pretty rubbish way to ensure that, as one good god could concecrate another's temple. And how do neutral gods/clerics manage?
– Rugnir
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
4
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
yesterday
5
-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
yesterday
6
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
yesterday
1
You may want to update your answer based on the updated spell wording.
– Rubiksmoose
19 hours ago
1
@Cyberspark while I suppose this could be a separate question, its worth remarking that this is a pretty rubbish way to ensure that, as one good god could concecrate another's temple. And how do neutral gods/clerics manage?
– Rugnir
3 hours ago
4
4
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
5
5
-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
yesterday
-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
yesterday
6
6
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
1
1
You may want to update your answer based on the updated spell wording.
– Rubiksmoose
19 hours ago
You may want to update your answer based on the updated spell wording.
– Rubiksmoose
19 hours ago
1
1
@Cyberspark while I suppose this could be a separate question, its worth remarking that this is a pretty rubbish way to ensure that, as one good god could concecrate another's temple. And how do neutral gods/clerics manage?
– Rugnir
3 hours ago
@Cyberspark while I suppose this could be a separate question, its worth remarking that this is a pretty rubbish way to ensure that, as one good god could concecrate another's temple. And how do neutral gods/clerics manage?
– Rugnir
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
17
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.
Disagree. English is not math. Neither are the DND rules, no matter how hard people try to read them like a logic puzzle. Basic vernacular English is the default when no DND special term supersedes it, and 'consecrated or desecrated' means if consecrated, you can tell that. If desecrated, you can tell that, too. To say 'it's an OR statement, so it returns "True" in either case' is not a valid reading of standard English, it's a reading of a SQL statement.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
1
@MarkTO As an English speaker myself, you are wrong. At a generous reading, they are both perfectly natural and valid readings. However, my reading seems much more natural to me than the one you espouse is the "one true reading" of these words. You are perfectly able to write your own answer with that interpretation though. (seeing as none of the answers agree with that as of yet - the top answer also expressed my exact same ruling in their first section). I'm really not going to argue this point so please save any follow-ups for suggestions for improvement only.
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
17
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.
Disagree. English is not math. Neither are the DND rules, no matter how hard people try to read them like a logic puzzle. Basic vernacular English is the default when no DND special term supersedes it, and 'consecrated or desecrated' means if consecrated, you can tell that. If desecrated, you can tell that, too. To say 'it's an OR statement, so it returns "True" in either case' is not a valid reading of standard English, it's a reading of a SQL statement.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
1
@MarkTO As an English speaker myself, you are wrong. At a generous reading, they are both perfectly natural and valid readings. However, my reading seems much more natural to me than the one you espouse is the "one true reading" of these words. You are perfectly able to write your own answer with that interpretation though. (seeing as none of the answers agree with that as of yet - the top answer also expressed my exact same ruling in their first section). I'm really not going to argue this point so please save any follow-ups for suggestions for improvement only.
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
up vote
17
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 19 hours ago
answered yesterday
Rubiksmoose
42.8k5213327
42.8k5213327
Disagree. English is not math. Neither are the DND rules, no matter how hard people try to read them like a logic puzzle. Basic vernacular English is the default when no DND special term supersedes it, and 'consecrated or desecrated' means if consecrated, you can tell that. If desecrated, you can tell that, too. To say 'it's an OR statement, so it returns "True" in either case' is not a valid reading of standard English, it's a reading of a SQL statement.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
1
@MarkTO As an English speaker myself, you are wrong. At a generous reading, they are both perfectly natural and valid readings. However, my reading seems much more natural to me than the one you espouse is the "one true reading" of these words. You are perfectly able to write your own answer with that interpretation though. (seeing as none of the answers agree with that as of yet - the top answer also expressed my exact same ruling in their first section). I'm really not going to argue this point so please save any follow-ups for suggestions for improvement only.
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Disagree. English is not math. Neither are the DND rules, no matter how hard people try to read them like a logic puzzle. Basic vernacular English is the default when no DND special term supersedes it, and 'consecrated or desecrated' means if consecrated, you can tell that. If desecrated, you can tell that, too. To say 'it's an OR statement, so it returns "True" in either case' is not a valid reading of standard English, it's a reading of a SQL statement.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
1
@MarkTO As an English speaker myself, you are wrong. At a generous reading, they are both perfectly natural and valid readings. However, my reading seems much more natural to me than the one you espouse is the "one true reading" of these words. You are perfectly able to write your own answer with that interpretation though. (seeing as none of the answers agree with that as of yet - the top answer also expressed my exact same ruling in their first section). I'm really not going to argue this point so please save any follow-ups for suggestions for improvement only.
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
Disagree. English is not math. Neither are the DND rules, no matter how hard people try to read them like a logic puzzle. Basic vernacular English is the default when no DND special term supersedes it, and 'consecrated or desecrated' means if consecrated, you can tell that. If desecrated, you can tell that, too. To say 'it's an OR statement, so it returns "True" in either case' is not a valid reading of standard English, it's a reading of a SQL statement.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
Disagree. English is not math. Neither are the DND rules, no matter how hard people try to read them like a logic puzzle. Basic vernacular English is the default when no DND special term supersedes it, and 'consecrated or desecrated' means if consecrated, you can tell that. If desecrated, you can tell that, too. To say 'it's an OR statement, so it returns "True" in either case' is not a valid reading of standard English, it's a reading of a SQL statement.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
1
1
@MarkTO As an English speaker myself, you are wrong. At a generous reading, they are both perfectly natural and valid readings. However, my reading seems much more natural to me than the one you espouse is the "one true reading" of these words. You are perfectly able to write your own answer with that interpretation though. (seeing as none of the answers agree with that as of yet - the top answer also expressed my exact same ruling in their first section). I'm really not going to argue this point so please save any follow-ups for suggestions for improvement only.
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
@MarkTO As an English speaker myself, you are wrong. At a generous reading, they are both perfectly natural and valid readings. However, my reading seems much more natural to me than the one you espouse is the "one true reading" of these words. You are perfectly able to write your own answer with that interpretation though. (seeing as none of the answers agree with that as of yet - the top answer also expressed my exact same ruling in their first section). I'm really not going to argue this point so please save any follow-ups for suggestions for improvement only.
– Rubiksmoose
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
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. This lack of explicit distinction between consecration and desecration is consistent with the overall downplaying of alignment-based mechanics in 5th Edition (e.g. the fact that detect evil and good detects creature types rather than alignments).
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.
English is not a programming language. Read it like an English sentence, not like query logic.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
1
@MarkTO Can you be more specific? Which sentence do you believe I've read incorrectly?
– Ryan Thompson
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
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. This lack of explicit distinction between consecration and desecration is consistent with the overall downplaying of alignment-based mechanics in 5th Edition (e.g. the fact that detect evil and good detects creature types rather than alignments).
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.
English is not a programming language. Read it like an English sentence, not like query logic.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
1
@MarkTO Can you be more specific? Which sentence do you believe I've read incorrectly?
– Ryan Thompson
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
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. This lack of explicit distinction between consecration and desecration is consistent with the overall downplaying of alignment-based mechanics in 5th Edition (e.g. the fact that detect evil and good detects creature types rather than alignments).
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. This lack of explicit distinction between consecration and desecration is consistent with the overall downplaying of alignment-based mechanics in 5th Edition (e.g. the fact that detect evil and good detects creature types rather than alignments).
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 5 hours ago
answered 23 hours ago
Ryan Thompson
3,50511042
3,50511042
English is not a programming language. Read it like an English sentence, not like query logic.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
1
@MarkTO Can you be more specific? Which sentence do you believe I've read incorrectly?
– Ryan Thompson
4 hours ago
add a comment |
English is not a programming language. Read it like an English sentence, not like query logic.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
1
@MarkTO Can you be more specific? Which sentence do you believe I've read incorrectly?
– Ryan Thompson
4 hours ago
English is not a programming language. Read it like an English sentence, not like query logic.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
English is not a programming language. Read it like an English sentence, not like query logic.
– MarkTO
4 hours ago
1
1
@MarkTO Can you be more specific? Which sentence do you believe I've read incorrectly?
– Ryan Thompson
4 hours ago
@MarkTO Can you be more specific? Which sentence do you believe I've read incorrectly?
– Ryan Thompson
4 hours ago
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
1
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
19 hours ago