Jaque Elle

This could be the acid test of how the spell works. If the spell always detects the recipient as being an enemy, then even someone behind a door, completely unaware of the casters presence, will detect as an enemy. Alternatively, if the spell relies on picking up some kind of instantaneous "intent" from the recipient (such as acting on a personal grudge, a cult antipathy (Orlanth v. a chaot), or perhaps a racial hatred (Troll v. Elf for example)), then it will not work - since there cannot be a "plan" on the part of the recipient to harm the caster if they don't know that they are there. Just to add some fuel to this discussion, how about this use-case: the recipient of the Detect Enemy spell had been fighting the party the caster is in, but someone else has successfully cast Befuddle on the recipient. Now, in a Befuddled state, but previously having been intending to harm the Caster, will the recipient still detect as an enemy? And taking this one step further, could you deliberately Befuddle an ally, and then push them through a Warding - so as to defeat the Warding activating (in a Befuddled state, can the recipient of the spell feel antipathy to anyone (except perhaps the person who just shoved them through the Warding)? Just having a thoughtful Sunday Morning, savouring a mug of Jamaica Blue Mountain coffee and listening to the new Manics album.

And normally, I wouldn't have spent more than a second on this kind of thing either; I made the judgement - a snake that had been attacking them, but that had (through Chaotic Feature) become invisible and was trying to get away, would not detect as an enemy. What took the time was the pushback from two players (both of whom have been playing RQ for decades) who thought the spell should have picked up the snake. To be fair to them both, I do know more "argumentative" players; quite a coincidence they weren't invited to join this particular campaign 😉 Oh well, snakes - why did it have to be snakes? I guess you have to be prepared for this kind of thing when you try to run a "Snakes on a Moonboat" episode!

It is clear that the RQ Battle Magic spell Detect Enemy will detect sentient self-aware creatures that intend harm to the caster. But will Detect Enemy reveal a Zombie or Skeleton that has "seen" the caster and is moving to attack them? And will Detect Enemy reveal a non self-aware creature with animal intelligence that intends to attack the caster, such as wolf, tiger or snake? Lastly, what of creatures without any intelligence that act purely on instinct, such as a Gorp; will such a creature drawn to the caster to harm them be highlighted by Detect Enemy? This question would seem to hinge on what it is the Detect Enemy spell is actually using to trigger a positive result - to detect an enemy. Does the entity need to be able to "know" that they wish to harm the caster for the spell to pick them up? In which case, you could exclude Zombies and Skeletons, as well as Gorp; they have no brains and cannot "know" anything. But can an animal predator be said to "know" that they wish to harm the caster, or are they just acting on instinct - the urge to assuage hunger or to protect their young for example? The above questions are not "theoretical" but informed by an incident in a scenario of mine that I was recently running (Snakes on a Moonboat). A chaos snake with the Chaos Feature (goes invisible at will) decided to avoid being killed by the players by - going invisible. A player decided that they could cast Detect Enemy to reveal where the snake was so they could hit it. I ruled that Detect Enemy would not work on a snake, as I have always played (call it a House Rule) that the spell only works on sentient self-aware creatures that "know" that they wish to harm the caster. The players argued the point, and in discussing the incident, it became clear that they thought I was fudging the rules to allow the snake to escape. I would be grateful for the any views, and (if it exists - and I did try searching) any documented evidence that confirms this one way or another. Many thanks, John