Muh Paladin semantics

>This fucking hack is still writing his shitty wax-people d&d drama

And just like in D&D, for every 19 pages of shit he makes, there's 1 page that's actually passable.

This is where it falls apart, for sure. When evil abuses the good nature of Pallies/LG people, it's indirectly causing more evil to happen.

Oddly enough, the opposite is actually more adherent, that Evil want a reason to help, but don't need an excuse to hurt people. Good can't exactly exploit evil nature without also being considered the same kind. Also, rarely does using evil for a good cause ever get remembered fondly.

Sheesh, the dark side really is far easier to pursue.

>Sheesh, the dark side really is far easier to pursue.

Think of it this way,

Being good is like jumping through 15 hoops flawlessly each and every day and if you nick one hoop, you're shit and terrible and everyone will say how much you suck for making one mistake after years of jumping through those hoops perfectly.

Being evil is like jumping through 15 hoops flawlessly each and every day, but as time goes on you start to mess up more and more. Maybe you nick a hoop once or twice a week, then it increases to five times, then you decide not to jump through the hoops for a day or two or five until you stop jumping through the hoops altogether.

The reason why good loses to evil and why good men fall is because being good has too many requirements that most people cannot hold themselves to, to a reasonable degree. It's like expecting a child to get an A+ on every single test they take, it's impossible yet there are people who expect you to perform to this standard for every single moment of your existence yet can't understand why some people will say "fuck it" and purposefully drop out of college just to get some degree of enjoyment out of their lives.

Good will make you feel like shit for messing up, evil will welcome mistakes and allow you to let go of the need to please anyone but yourself.

This is why evil wins in the long run.

Wait a minute. Back in >pic related, Ears detected evil on them, and determined they were evil. Then, he didn't do anything until they were attacked. How is that not making certain "bringing harm to others is the correct and necessary thing to do?"

Leave aside the Kore bit- what would a paladin be SUPPOSED to do in the Hall of Evil-Opposites-But-You-Don't-Know-That-Yet, according to Thunt?

This is one of the reasons a spell like "Detect Evil" is better used for objects and spotting daemon-ghosts sneaking up on you or using illusions, rather than on characters with full personhood. For example:
>The glowing red ring could be powerful, but the Paladin "Detects Evil" so we realize it's probably some dark lord's gear.
>There's three beautiful maidens bathing by a river, but they all ping as evil and are promptly revealed as water hag things that eat people.

Meanwhile, a morally bankrupt Vizier probably *shouldn't* ping as evil, both for story purposes and to account for creatures with free will being more difficult to tie directly to cosmic forces of good and evil. At least, that's my thinking behind not having Paladin's just auto-smite, or getting into a silly arms race of alignment hiding spells.

Bullshit like this is one of the reasons why, if I ever play a Paladin*, it will be a Paladin of a specific god/religion. Things that depend on the good/evil of a target will instead work on if my god/religion does/doesn't like the target.

If the GM won't agree to that and wants my paladin to fall if he is 'evil', then I won't play a paladin in that game.

*Which is likely to happen next time I play a system and setting that allows one.

So Thunt's point seems to be that this is all really subjective. Ears' ax cracked because Ears feels like he did something wrong. Kore gets away with being a murderhobo because he doesn't think he did anything wrong. Therefore evil-ass paladins everywhere in D&D.
That's pretty meta.

Which wouldn't be so bad if the RAW actually lived up to that, but they don't. They want alignment to refer to bloodlines *and* planes of origin *and* NPC design *and* PC choices *and* school of magic *and* battlefield tactics *and* equipment selection. Then you throw an oath or a sentient weapon in there and the whole thing is back to being a trashfire.

>"I'm sad."
And there go my sides

Dude, D&D is so fucked when it comes to an alignment that it's hard to honestly pin down what it's actually supposed to represent.

It refers to a way of life and an elemental force of the universe. It's hard to call anything "objectively" anything due to the fact that the game's own definition of good/evil can be used to refer to multiple areas.

If it was something like an element, then detect good/evil should be used to detect a person's aura to sense what types of magic they utilize most often.

If it was something like a way of life, then it should honestly only work on non-humans who come from planes that aren't our own, similarly to how it works in 5e.

Either of these could work but really, the problem comes from the game mixing these two concepts together.

I think Pillars of Eternity handled this scenario pretty damned well. Instead of establishing some universal morality that all paladins had to adhere to at pain of 'falling', there were different orders of paladins who were, in turn, expected to hold a different moral ideal. There were some paladins who were guided towards being merciless, brutal smite bots (like Kore), and some devoted to being the kind, compassionate type (like Big Ears). They'd only 'fall' if they consistently deviated from the ideals that they took on by joining their orders.

Shame the idea didn't gain more steam.

I really like objective Evil, myself. It's because you can get away from all the hand-wringing and navel-gazing. Like:

> "Okay, okay. Your angst-filled backstory is very interesting, but you're really fucking Evil.
> I'm just going to kill you now."

>"I'm sad"

Wait, did this comic get better while I wasn't looking? That's actually really funny.

Good is about trying to jump through the hoops. Evil starts when you stop trying and begin just going through the motions.

You are making this far more complicated than it is in a transparent attempt to make evil sound superior.

Being a good person is pretty damn easy since being evil requires you to actively do immoral things or actively fuck with other people.

Not really.

When you think about it, most people are far less willing to trust kind, helpful, altruistic people then someone who they know is bad news.

I mean, if someone threatens you and wishes to cause you harm, you at least know where they stand. Hell, there are whackos who actively seek out sexual relationships with murderers, rapists, and other criminals just because they think being a piece of shit is sexy as fuck.

If someone claims to be "good, kind, helpful, charitable, etc." then you're going to immediately distrust them because you're going to think "why is this motherfucker so nice, he must be up to something."

And why wouldn't you?

Cultists, nice-guys, sociopaths, and other types of shady people claim to be good folks, only to use it as an in to get close to you and ruin your life just to further their own happiness.

D&D Good isn't that fault tolerant or that intention-based. Lots of bad/stupid/evil crap starts with someone meaning well.

IRL I'm all for an ethos of "do the best you can with what you've got. Take care of each other. Pay it forward when you can but don't set yourself on fire to keep someone else warm. And for God's sake it's better to give a second chance than to make an enemy" but it doesn't look *anything* like the myriad of things that "good" can mean in an alignment system.

Alignment remains a garbage dump of a system being asked to track too many terribly different things under too many circumstances just to cram it into one of 9 boxes. Frankly, we could do worse than "for a Paladin's purposes 'being good' means trying to be as helpful as possible in every circumstance. Sometimes that means taking a bold stance, sometimes it means listening to feedback, sometimes it means doing the right thing when it isn't the easy thing, and sometimes it means solving the problem as safely and efficiently as possible. You'll win some, you'll lose some, but you haven't fallen until you're been knocked down and don't get back up."

But then we couldn't mine stupid alignment mechanics for stupid alignment arguments and might have to talk about and/or play the actual game.

>If someone claims to be "good, kind, helpful, charitable, etc." then you're going to immediately distrust them because you're going to think "why is this motherfucker so nice, he must be up to something."
It's not about claiming to be anything. It's about living your life without making undue demands of others, and offering your assistance when it's needed. It's really not that hard. In fact, you probably do it when you're not acting edgy on the internet.

Good /= Perfectly Good

>You are making this far more complicated than it is in a transparent attempt to make evil sound superior
Also this.

Good is about jumping through hoops because you're expected to.

Evil is when you stop trying to jump through hoops because you realize how pointless it is.

Redemption is when you stop jumping through hoops, not for the sake of others, but because you want to.

The D&D alignment system is fine when you use it properly.
>Oh, my character grew up and stopped being a childish edgelord, now I've lost proficiency with my +2 Chaotic Katana of Weebness)
The problem is when people don't understand it and think that alignment determines the actions that a character is allowed to perform and it begins to infringe on player agency.
>You can't tip that waitress! As a chaotic character, you believe she should quit her job if she's not earning a living wage from it.

Again, I wanted to point out your weak logic and how you argued against yourself...
>It's not about claiming to be anything. It's about living your life without making undue demands of others, and offering your assistance when it's needed. It's really not that hard.
This user Again said it well.
It's easy to be good in most situations.

What you might be thinking of is: "It's easier to get what you think you want at the moment when you think you want it, if you're willing to be evil."
But that doesn't make it hard to be good.

The same rule applies.

When someone you don't know acts incredibly helpful and kind and charitable for no reason, you'll immediately start to think "why is this motherfucker helping me so damn much?"

Because let's face, the idea of a scumbag doing something nice to get something they want from you isn't out of the realm of possibility, we hear about it all the time and we expect the worst because we've all known someone who fell for the "nice-guy" meme and ended up being indebted to someone because the "nice-guy" kept bringing up all the bullshit they did and tried making you feel guilty for them going out of their way to please you.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't nice people are there who are good for goodness sake but 9/10 times, nobody does anything for no reason.

If you slip up being good then it's just a gradual shift down to evil.

Why do you think Batman never killed the Joker?

I'm not talking about following someone around and chewing their food for them. I'm talking about shit like being at work and your coworker is bitching about his/her car breaking down and the bus ride home requiring 5 stops and 2 hours. If you offer a ride, no one in their right mind is going to think you have some sort of ulterior motive. Or if you're lounging around at home and you see your neighbor out painting his or her fence so you go out and offer a hand.

It's really not that hard to not be a complete twatwaffle.

>If someone claims to be
>claims

This is why it's best to look to a person's actions rather than their words. Granted, an awful person can act decent for a while, but that's still harder to pull off than just talking about it.

>If you slip up being good then it's just a gradual shift down to evil.
Because redemption is impossible, doing one evil thing permanently ruins you forever, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, anyone who isn't perfectly good will eventually become as evil as possible, and people only ever become more evil and never become more good?
No.

Your example is one of an individual's personal, subjective threshold between Good and Killer/Bad and indicative only of his mindset, not the intrinsic nature of humanity.

>Why do you think Batman never killed the Joker?

Because he has the mentality and stability of an at-risk youth?

Christ, these characters are ugly as fuck

The tumblr-tier crybaby faggot is just making an obvious and ham-handed political statement, and you're all fucking retarded for not seeing it.

This is a worse case of words-words-words than OotS. If I wanted to read a thesis about paladins I wouldn't look for a comic.

>If you offer a ride, no one in their right mind is going to think you have some sort of ulterior motive.

"Why is this weird guy who I barely talk to offering me a ride, he must be one of those fuckers who drives a windowless van around a school, fucking weirdo."

>Or if you're lounging around at home and you see your neighbor out painting his or her fence so you go out and offer a hand.

"Why is this weird guy who lives alone offering to help me paint a fence, he must be trying to get me to do a favor for him."

Well yeah, why do you think so many paladins end up falling?

(samefriend)

Yeah, absolutely. Difference between "screw helping people, Imma get mine. Let me just mail this holy symbol back and we'll go do some mugging" and "it was a rough situation and I had to make some quick calls with the information I had. If I knew then what I know now I'd have done a few things different but that's always the case." One's a fall and the other is just making friends with the reality of operating with imperfect information.

If at heart you still want to upset status quo's you should still be capable of working the Weebtana. Hell, even if you've actually come to appreciate that order can get some stuff done too and gone neutral you should still have truck with the blade (3.PF "anarchic" weapons only require you to be non-Lawful. Hell, even a lawful character can weeb it out for a -1 level while actually holding the blade. 5e just requires you not get in a fight with the weapon as you're trying to use it)

Actually going lawful in the I-don't-want-any-more-Chaos-in-the-world-than-there-has-to-be sense *should* be a split with the blade, though, because it's a ticket to a place you don't actually want to go. If you *do* still want to go there, you're Neutral-whatever at best.

The difficulty comes in when players can't process it through the lenses of "my intelligent sword and I both want a world of peace and order even if we don't always agree on the best way to get there, but we're in harmony as long as we're willing to listen to each other and work through it" or "I value life too much to take one if at all avoidable, but I won't stand by and watch innocent people die in hopes of saving one person who is choosing to do evil even if my intervention may well result in their death."

Instead we get stupid crap like PF's "phylactery of faithfulness" which is a box of scripture on a headband that automatically tells you if you're gaining or losing brownie points with "good" or "bad." Screw that.

So nothing good happens and everyone is as suspicious as possible against everyone? Wow you're an edgelord.
Backstabbing_We'reFree!.jpeg

>Instead we get stupid crap like PF's "phylactery of faithfulness" which is a box of scripture on a headband that automatically tells you if you're gaining or losing brownie points with "good" or "bad." Screw that.

Honestly, a lot of stupid shit concerning alignments can be traced back to 3rd edition as a whole.

If you're really this fearful of other people, I feel sorry for you. But don't mind me, that's just my selfishness talking.

It's just so painfully over-loaded. The paladin keeps his powers and his anti-evil superweapon as long as he makes good choices by whatever poorly defined standard seems shiniest at the moment while the thing he's beating to death with it is taking extra damage because of it's plane or origin. Unless it's the other way around. And then 2 scenes later the same "mechanic" is liable to come up again because in some stupid way because Aerith channels positive energy because she's an NG cleric but Bob takes damage because 3 stories ago he was saved from death by a "blood" transfusion from a CN NPC from a CE racial type and it's all so stupid and poorly defined and I hate all of it.

We live in a world where people kidnap children, where people will put razor blades in candy apples on Halloween, where weirdos will chop you into little bitty pieces because the wind blew the wrong way.

In short, people are fucking nuts and you have good reason to be suspicious of everyone you meet to a reasonable extent.

Hell, even good people only do good things either because they believe that they're supposed to or because it makes them feel better.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

>All people are evil
>You can never trust anyone ever
*tips fedora*

I honestly don't see the problems with it. Every NPC race gets a base alignment for the GM's sanity, and any character of importance (including PCs) gets an alignment based on their actions. Having demon's blood doesn't make you evil unless it actually corrupts you and makes you start doing evil stuff. Alignment doesn't count for anything except things like aligned weapons and detect evil and such. As long as alignment doesn't impinge on roleplaying, I don't think it's an issue.

It's because it's defined as an elemental force of the universe, a way of living one's life, and a point of origin where outsiders come from.

It's hard to define it because it applies to so many different areas at once and they have fundamentally different definitions for how they work.

He is right, and that's why the axe didn't break. Kore WAS evil, and the axe knew that, even though Ears didn't and his faith took a hit.

I don't think you understand how statistically unlikely all of those things are. You're more likely to get hit a car and die on your way to the grocery store (regardless of whether you choose to walk or drive or ride your bike) than have any of those things happen to you. How do you even live if you're afraid to leave your house at all?

'cept the guards back in Goblinslayer's place were evil. It's not subjective, and we still don't know how Kore is keeping his powers.

On the topic of the thread, I quite like this strip more than the others. He danced around his code because other people told him to, and that's not something a paladin can get away with.

So if some random dude came up to you and offered to give you a ride, you would let him do it just because he "seemed like a nice guy?"

Being good doesn't mean being naive.

>Evil creatures are Objectively Evil because they are made of particles of Objective Evil from the Plane of Objective Evil.
No they're not user. Stop that.

No, because it's suspicious.
If a coworker I don't really know of offer me a ride home after I complained that my car broke, I certainly would. That's how you get to meet new people and make friends.
I do that sometimes too, I offer help to people next to me without tinking about it.

>some random dude
Your coworker
>came up to you
When you were already conversing
>and offered to give you a ride
When it was clear you needed one

Damn son, you can't even strawman properly.

Actually it is quite interesting. Guys ping as evil because it's Ears' past self who has the evil as fuck axe. Whether that's clever or not is up to debate, but it makes sense.
>Meanwhile, a morally bankrupt Vizier probably *shouldn't* ping as evil
No, he shouldn't. Because a Ring of Mind Shielding is 8000 gp.
:^)

The problem comes in when all these disparate and poorly defined but thematically rich and interesting questions end up slamming headfirst into a mechanics question and have to be resolved. If I'm a positive channeling cleric does my channel help or hurt an NG good acting ally who was originally from a CE plane? If I'm LG and my buddy's intelligent blade is anarchic, but he's currently unconscious and me and the blade both want the BBEG dead and now is our chance, do I get the full bonus because me and the blade are in harmony so I roll at full strength or do I take a negative level because I'm technically lawful and it's technically chaotic? Or do we have to face the fact that both me and the blade are actually neutral because we're so willing to team up? And isn't odd that wouldn't have even come up if I was trying to stab him with a butter knife?

Mess. Utter, stupid, wasteful, mess.

Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that it never happens.

I mean, it's statistically unlikely that you'll get robbed or suffer a home invasion but I bet you still lock your goddamn doors.

Besides, I'm not saying to go through life constantly looking over your shoulder, I'm saying that you should have a reasonable degree of skepticism and suspicion whenever you talk to someone you don't know.

Which includes not getting into a car with someone you don't know.

>NG good acting ally
Seems pretty clear to me.
>If I'm LG and my buddy's intelligent blade is anarchic, but he's currently unconscious and me and the blade both want the BBEG dead and now is our chance, do I get the full bonus because me and the blade are in harmony so I roll at full strength or do I take a negative level because I'm technically lawful and it's technically chaotic?
I'd say that if the blade is sapient and you can convince it you want the same thing, then you're fine. If it's just a chaotically aligned weapon then you take the level reduction.

There's super easy and intuitive ways to resolve all of these issues if you stop trying to make alignment something it was never intended to be.

So is it bad writing to have a filibuster about morality when morality is an important mechanic of the setting?
I guess it is, show don't tell and all.

>That's how you get to meet new people and make friends.

That's also how you end up on the missing person's list.

So?

That's like saying it's okay to get a ride from someone who goes to the same class as you.

Just because you're in the same building doesn't mean that you're friends, at most you're casual acquaintances.

I mean, if you're hanging out with them outside of work/class then that's different.

>Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that it never happens.
No, but worrying about things that are incredibly unlikely to the exclusion of much more clear and present dangers that you accept implicitly is illogical.
>I bet you still lock your goddamn doors.
I don't, actually. Haven't been robbed yet.
>Which includes not getting into a car with someone you don't know.
Except we're explicitly talking about someone you do know. And hell, my brother hitchhiked across the country and back. As far as I know, no one was raped or murdered.

Both work if you prioritize "what makes sense" over RAW but that doesn't change the fact that RAW is sludge. As guidelines it's great but as hard crunchy mechanics it's literally worse than useless.

How well do you think you have to know someone before you get in a car with them?

>That's also how you end up on the missing person's list.
Highly unlikely.
"Hey, that's weird, this dude is missing and the last time we saw him he was riding with this coworker he didn't know well. I wonder what happened!"

>Letting rules cuck your roleplaying
This is literally why GM Fiat (or should that be Fiat Chrysler?) exists.

>There's super easy and intuitive ways to resolve all of these issues if you stop trying to make alignment something it was never intended to be.

It's only "simple and intuitive" if you ignore most of the bullshit and make your own judgment call based on what you believe the alignments represent.

Which doesn't help when the game has mechanical penalties for acting out of alignment yet doesn't do a good job of defining what alignment actually is when it calls an alignment an objective measurement of an elemental force of the universe and a subjective view on how a sentient creature lives their life.

Big Ears' description of evil is basically that of a vindictive person.
Most of us have the image of a sociopath associated with evil, but sociopathy is relatively rare, vindictive empaths are much more plentiful.
It's a good heuristic, I like it.

>mechanical penalties for acting out of alignment
Like what, Paladins notwithstanding?

Part the first I'll take that as win: As I've said from the beginning RAW is indeed useless shit and needs to be thrown out and replaced with 'because the DM said so' to work as advertised.

Part the second, if I wanted to pull rulings out of my ass I wouldn't bother spending money on the books to begin with. I can figure out my own opinion for free. The point of the books is for people to figure this shit out ahead of time so my group can spend more time on story and mechanics and less on game design.

>How well do you think you have to know someone before you get in a car with them?

When you know them well enough to note their positive qualities and their negative qualities.

Never trust a motherfucker who never lets you see their flaws, it means they're hiding something devious beneath the surface.

The cops placing you in his car isn't going to unrape/unkill you nigga.

>needs to be thrown out
No, you just need to use a tiny bit of common sense when arbitrating disputes. Usually this shit will never even come up. If it does, giving a concise and intuitive ruling is faster than digging through rulebooks to resolve some obscure rules interaction.

The aforementioned -1 level for a lawful creature using an anarchic weapon.

XP penalties for going out of alignment in OD&D.

Not being able to progress through certain classes like the monk, barbarian, and druid if you shift too far out of your alignment.

Losing access to certain spells that are of a [good] or [evil] alignment.

Among other things.

Clerics, for one. Bards. Monks. Alignment specific items both enchanted and sentient/intelligent, protection from alignment gear an spells, bonus damage items and spells that target an alignment, positive and negative energy channeling.

Not to mention PFS has a rule that Evil aligned characters are automatically unplayable and Adventures League bans NE and CE, house rules that a *lot* of DMs maintain.

All that and we haven't even talked about any IC stuff. Odd that. It's almost as if this is a poorly defined mechanic that shows up in way too many places and actually reduces to crunch too often.

How well do you have to know someone to verify that they're not secretly trying to torture and kill you? Can you ever get to that point if you never spend any time alone with them?

But they will catch him 100%, which means it's highly unlikely to happen.
You sound paranoid as fuck mate

Still no.

And why do paladins fall?
Because of dick GMs and edgy players like user Edgerton of McEvilshire that I was responding to, whose concept of good and evil is based on the "wisdom" of Dark Helmet.

None of those things sound like issues as long as you treat alignment reasonably and don't pull any orc babies wat do bullshit.

Nobody can really do that. There is so much need in the world that you could live your whole life as a slave, claiming nothing at all for yourself and selflessly accepting massive amounts of abuse, and still never make things noticeably better. Everyone who enjoys a higher standard of living than abject slavery is being selfish to some degree. I admit it. Most people do not. They think that it takes some relatively small fee or tithe to earn the status of "good person." In reality it takes everything, all your property, comfort, liberty, and dignity for the rest of your life.

"Just make it up if you don't like what's written" is far from common sense. It defeats the whole purpose of having a rulebook in the first place.

It's just more magic tea party grognard bullshit where ultimately it's whatever your DM feels like that day and we've got this whole board full of reasons that never actually works out.

Mechanical alignment is a useless system that requires the DM to fiat things to their own taste instead of exploring them in game and that's literally the opposite of a working system

>Never trust a motherfucker who never lets you see their flaws, it means they're hiding something devious beneath the surface.
My god, Mother Theresa must have been one seriously devious bitch.

You really can't, or at least not 100%.

People who worked with her have said things to that effect. She was deeply unpleasant to work with and wasn't even particularly religious, having taken her vows mostly for social reasons.

This is just edgelord bullshit justifying assholery by defining Good as impossibly difficult to attain. By enslaving yourself to others' needs, you make yourself require the assistance of others to survive and make the world even worse off than it was. See to your own needs first, then help others as you are able.

I literally suffer from Paranoid Personality Disorder, to the point where I kick over my garbage cans when I take out the garbage for fear of someone lurking in them, yet I'm still capable of realizing how stupid you're being. I have all these moronic thoughts but I fight them to be a rational non-retarded human being, so for you to actually believe what you're saying, I think you should seriously see a shrink m8.

The problem is the setting actually has orc babies in it. That's not some theoretical thing that only happens in obscure thought experiments, you're either required by your deity/philosophy/ideals/vow to genocide the orcs if possible or you are not.

Treating "Good," "Evil," "Lawful," and "Chaotic" as if they are simultaneously ways you can behave, things you can be born into, places you can be from, elemental magical forces, and choices at character creation and then sort of glomping them together and hoping no one looks to close isn't "reasonable" it's stupid. If it's not coming up in your games it's not because it's not a problem it's because you're consciously or unconsciously steering away from it.

Which wouldn't be a bad thing if you just owned up to it but you come on here and pretend like that's the right just and honorable thing to do and anyone who points it out is just being unreasonable. The system doesn't work and it either has to be fiat patched or avoided.

People don't think about the consequences at every point of their day, even then they'll usually think that they'll be able to get away with it.

They could kill/rape you and then realize "oh shit, I could go to jail" after the fact, it's not going to save you.

>You sound paranoid as fuck mate
You are arguing with someone that is professing that you can better trust someone who is openly threatening you rather than someone who acts polite, kind, or somewhat Canadian.
Paranoia is the least of their issues.

Except for the fact that alignment restrictions exist and many options in the PHB depend on your character's alignment.

Ignoring it as also changing the system, and complaining about it on Neohimalayan cryptopottery forums isn't productive.

She actually was.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

Morality/ethics are hard, they're even harder when you refuse to put any effort into them

Yeah, yeah.
And Ghandi killed his wife.
Everyone ever is super evil.
Guess that excuses us all from being dicks, right?
>Murderhobo time for all!
Please.

What parts are unreasonable to you?

That's the utilitarian way of justifying a selfish life. But unless you'd murder x people to save x+1 people, you must admit that there's more to good than simply weighing help against harm. Good is more about adherence to good principles, especially the principle that one must be selfless. So a life of voluntary slavery is good even if it means not being particularly helpful. Starving yourself to death so that others can eat is almost certainly not the choice that produces the most utility, but good is not about utility.