In a world where monsters can hide as people, would your character be offended if someone cast 'Detect Evil' on him?

I'm fairly certain psychopaths exist in the fantasy world. And zealots.

"I bring true life to those I kill! Their lives wasted away and they clung to their pain as I tried to free them. And now that they are free they live on in the beautiful afterlife!"

Trying to help people, selfless, seems good to me, though quite crazy. This wouldn't be a major problem though, cause being this kind of crazy is notably uncommon I'm sure.

>You've never had to cut down a corrupt noble
That's good. Unlawful but not evil.
>You've never had to stab the sinister court wizard
That's good. Unlawful but not evil.
>You've never had a random bum
What.

All of those are not evil (except the last because I didn't get it).

That's definitely evil. If a character does that his alignment falls.

Yeah. Those are all not evil.
And are all murder.
Hence, good is not incompatible with murder.

I believe that's the point. They're Good, but still murder in the eyes of civilization.

But he's helping people, selflessly. He's sending the sick and homeless too paradise. No pay no nothing.

>murder
Actually I was wrong, murder is unlawful killing. And being corrupt or using dark arts is grounds for immediate termination at the hands of the nearest Paladin.

That's not how DnD alignment works.

I'm making a neutral evil necrocmancer cleric in 3.5.
Gonna pump bluff and and be a pathological liar.
>what alignment are you?
>neutral

Are you kidding? I'd be offended if they didn't cast 'Detect Evil' on me. CONSTANT VIGILANCE

>Chaotic Good: Creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.

"I want to help people." "They shouldn't be in so much pain." "I'm going to ease their pain." "Sending them to the afterlife." "I don't care if you say it's wrong I'm helping them."

Page 122 of the Fifth Edition PHB.

Not saying he is getting into a positive plane afterlife with his actions, but he fits the bill.

No he doesn't, because good and evil are not subjective concepts in DnD.

Yup, but he will get past a detect evil spell, cause his alignment is Chaotic Good.

I mean, I use Jade Strike as a hello sometimes so I don't really have grounds to complain here.

Stabbing a bum attempting to murder you is generally legal, user.

No he doesn't, because killing random people is an evil action regardless of what he believes.

An evil act indeed, but it won't change their alignment. Cause this psycho doesn't fit the evil descriptions. No blood lust, no personal gain, and he acts with "compassion".

Nah, she'd just ping as Lawful Neutral, no big deal.
Now, Detect Poison and Disease, on the other hand...

user, you know you are trying to game the system. But no, you cannot make concrete evil actions without an acceptable context and keep a good alignment.

You're talking about an alignment where the people of that alignment aren't just out for themselves like the average neutral person, but go above and beyond with their willingness to kill for it.

If somebody is 'Evil', but they aren't doing anything wrong, don't intend to do anything wrong, and insists that they're just kinda selfish and wouldn't plan on hurting someone else just for their own gain, then they aren't Evil to start with.

Evil aligned people are nothing but a detriment to society. Chaotic Neutral thieves might be stealing, but any deaths from them would be less frequent. Chaotic good thieves would be giving most of it to charity afterwards and only stealing from other criminals or corrupt individuals. Any killing by such individuals is likely justified in many cases, whether it be a chaotic good vigilante killing a corrupt politician, or a neutral individual practicing self defense.

Either way, I would certainly rather have a society be rid of all Evil individuals than all Chaotic ones.

>you cannot make concrete evil actions without an acceptable context and keep a good alignment.
You can't do EVIL actions as a habit at all and keep a good alignment, countenancing cruelty for the sake of a greater good is a purely neutral tenement.

How you feel about what you do isn't what decides your alignment, it's what you do.

>If somebody is 'Evil', but they aren't doing anything wrong, don't intend to do anything wrong, and insists that they're just kinda selfish and wouldn't plan on hurting someone else just for their own gain, then they aren't Evil to start with.
Sure, but what about the Evil guy who's completely in it for himself but also not a gibbering retard and so realizes that "playing nice" and following the constraints of society is the best way to avoid being Bubba the ogre's prison fucktoy?

Really though, this just boils down to thoughtcrime.

Yes I'm trying to game the game. This is DnD alignments so this is DnD rules.

And I don't see that in the rule book, but let's assume that! So concrete evil action, plus acceptable context for the action, will make an evil alignment.

Murder is definitely an evil action, I will concede to that. But the context is important. He is "saving" people, they are in a shitty world, where they have nothing, and he is going out of his way to give them a new life. He's bringing people to the afterlife, he's giving them a life they can love! He doesn't get anything out of this, just the good deed of helping someone, like giving gold to the poor.

What I believe that people don't get, is that the context, is relative. It's an evil act to us, cause in our mind we see it as murder, but in his mind, where you choose your alignment, it's a good act! He is appeasing the rules of Chaotic Good cause on his end, he is helping people by whatever means necessary.

Now if you are about to say alignment isn't relative, that it's all concrete and no matter what, then why does he not fit the bill of any of the evil, or even neutral alignments?

Yes he is sending people to the afterlife. He hates killing people, but he's helping them.

>make a Detect Disguised Monster spell.
Or a trinket that does the job too.

The descriptions you're pointing to are for normal, non-delusional individuals. An extreme sociopath might believe they're the only creature on the planet whose existence matters, and everyone else is just a simulation. They might view themselves as neutral, since they're just doing what they can to survive and help themselves, but from any other metric they would be chaotic evil if they're killing others with impunity and treating everyone else like garbage.

Chaotic Evil is the alignment for the insane who don't know how evil they are.

Actually, chaotic evil is quite well explained as I said before . It is for bloodlust, greed, and hatred.

Your sociopath doesn't have any of that, unless he is killing people for fun, then that's bloodlust, that's evil. But he is just going about his life, uncaring of others, and doing what he has to do to survive.

Evil actions indeed, but an evil alignment, he is not.

Just a reminder that people with fewer than 4 Hit Dice (with the exception of Divine Classes) Don't ping at all on 'Detect' spells.

And, if you would read

>The descriptions you're pointing to are for normal, non-delusional individuals

If not chaotic evil, then neutral evil certainly. He is doing whatever he can get away with, without any sort of compassion because he doesn't see anyone as equal. Could also apply to Chaotic evil if you look more towards the 'arbitrary violence' bit, fueled by his own selfish nature since he figures the entire world is his for the taking.

Either way, still Evil, even if he doesn't think there are any actual people for him to be Evil towards.

Doesn't say that anywhere in the book that this is for normal people. Where is the description for dillusional people? If so then this is all taken care of. But if there aren't rules for dillusional people, then those alignments are what exist. Clear and simple.

If he thinks the world is for the taking that's greed, Chaotic Evil.

And not neutral evil cause he isn't doing whatever he can get away with, he is going through life without care.

Emphasis mine. The descriptions you're pointing to are for typical individuals, and later in the section it points out how beasts and creatures incapable of rational decision making are typically unaligned.

Someone suffering from delusions that would prevent them from making a rational moral choice would obviously have alignment apply to them in a way that is different from what is typical.

>And not neutral evil cause he isn't doing whatever he can get away with, he is going through life without care.

But he is though. He's randomly killing people because he doesn't view them as equals or worth his respect.

A murderous sociopath is one of the easiest examples you can point to for an Evil-aligned individual.

Oh if you are working off of your own homebrew rules then he can be chaotic evil hands down. If alignment isn't dictated by you if some otherworldly order dictates it, then yes into would be evil. But that's homebrew alignment.

D&D alignment, means someone can be good, but with just the right context, can also commit atrocities.

So he thinks poorly of them? He thinks they are below him, that they disgust him? Sounds like hatred to me, chaotic evil.

If he is killing just for the sake of killing, cause I assumehe likes killing, that's chaotic evil bloodlust.

Forgot pic. Basing this entirely on the rulebook you were quoting

Yep, but he wouldn't see it that way, because to him they aren't actually real people, so he thinks he's neutral.

Therefore, you can be an alignment that doesn't match your motivations.

Yes they describe what is typical of a person of that alignment, and my first example is following the typical Chaotic Good rules, that you act on your conscience and don't care of another's opinion.

Unaligned is for creatures with absolutely no rational thought, unaligned is for beasts or things that cannot make a decision that's relies on more than their bestial nature. My example isn't killing people to eat, he is killing people to save them.

But he does hate them, you can hate something that isn't real. He is running on his hatred for the non real people. That is chaotic evil. He is only neutral if he follows the rules of neutral, and he isn't following them. He is letting his hatred and disgust for the non real people dictate his actions.

>you act on your conscience and don't care of another's opinion.
And murder is an evil act. Your typical behavior is murder and thus you are evil. Your intent makes little difference, your actions are what matter and rather than helping the innocent to a better place you are murdering them. It does not matter that you want to send them anywhere, you are killing people to appease your own conscious. Your god may try to claim you but you're definitely going to somewhere between the grey wastes and the abyss.

>And murder is an evil act.
Citation needed. Murder is the act of unlawful killing.

Who said he hates them? He believes he's a neutral agent, steering clear of moral decisions or taking sides, because there's only one side, which is his. He isn't particularly disgusted by them any more than someone would be disgusted by a rock or an animal or anything.

Which is why the thinking here is flawed. You could argue just as easily that my murderous sociopath is chaotic good, since he doesn't care about the opinions of others, because he doesn't think there are any, and is simply acting on his views.

But of course, those descriptions only apply as TYPICAL examples. People who are insane or delusional are NOT typical. It applies to those creatures capable of rational thought, while those that are absolutely incapable of it, such as animals, are unaligned.

Someone who is insane or delusional falls in the middle of being rational and having no ration at all. They might be partially rational, which means they could have an alignment, but that their views and motives might not line up as cleanly with the Typical descriptions.

Killing people out of some misguided attempt to send them to an afterlife is not Chaotic Good. I mean, what if the character who is doing that worships a god that no longer exists, and thus his attempts to send people to heaven are all for nothing and he doesn't know it?

When considering alignment, you have to take into account multiple perspectives and judge on a case by case basis. There isn't a hard and fast set of rules for this sort of thing, so you have to think critically, instead of trying to jump through hoops and bend over backwards to justify why Sir Orphan Killer is actually doing a great public service by reducing the number of Orphans.

>>G
>>murderer
>Then he isn't G.

By your logic, your alignment is immutable right? A good person cannot turn evil, right? Otherwise, murderers can be good. A to-be-murderer would just be a good person that hasn't turned evil yet.

So if we follow your logic, you can literally stop all crime by just casting detect evil on newborn babies, and if they ping, you just throw them in a pit with wolves, acid or some shit.

"Murder is an Evil act" - Everyone with a brain talking about D&D alignments

And you are going around killing people with no higher authority. Hell, you're claiming to be chaotic so its definitely unlawful. And you're killing them. Thus murder.

>A to-be-murderer would just be a good person that hasn't turned evil yet.

The fact that they are at a point in their life and morals that they would consider murder as an option means they are not Good.

I agree again a murder is an evil act! And I agree that the character will go to an evil place such as the abyss when they die, but until then, as they act dictated by their conscience, without care to what others say of it. He will be chaotic good, and walk free past a detect evil spell. Because he doesn't kill for hatred or greed or personal gain. He kills because he wants to help people, and he isn't going to listen to you no matter how evil you say he is. Bringing back to my previous statement. You can commit evil acts, but not be an evil alignment. You have to act like an evil alignment in order to be one. Like you can't be LG because you are a necromancer that does good acts.

A good person who does evil things will fall to neutral, if he keeps doing evil will fall to evil.

Detect Evil don't trigger before die 5. And yes, we should slay all [always evil] babies.

>will go to an evil place such as the abyss when they die
Does not happen unless their alignment is such or they gave their soul to someone there.

>as they act dictated by their conscience,
Thinking what you do is good doesn't make it good. Alignment fall, collect 1 copper.

And none of that establishes that murder is evil.

But what if the circumstances that cause them to consider, then commit, murder don't arise until a few minutes before the murder?

Or hell, what if a Good person commits a murder and drops to Neutral? Detect Evil won't catch them.

>Like you can't be LG because you are a necromancer that does good acts.

Except you can. You can have a Lawful Good necromancer Wizard who uses their expertise to go around killing undead, so long as they don't raise any skeletons or zombies or anything, because the use of that spell is Evil.

A crazy Necromancer Wizard who tried to fight crime by summoning hordes of skeletons and believed he was doing good without caring what others thought of it would still be Evil.

>Or hell, what if a Good person commits a murder and drops to Neutral? Detect Evil won't catch them.
Yes. And...? Detect Evil isn't supposed to be the solution to all world problems, it's purpose is to out demons and followers of evil goods.

Christ i wouldn't wish any of you on even my most hated gm ya bunch of pedantic retards.

>But what if the circumstances that cause them to consider, then commit, murder don't arise until a few minutes before the murder?

If they were good aligned, then they wouldn't be considering it. If they still commit the murder, then they were probably neutral to begin with and just had it marked on their sheet wrong.

Committing a murder of an innocent in cold blood makes you Evil. Full stop. Killing someone who is themselves evil or who is attacking you is at best, neutral.

This is why I just ignore alignment in all my games. It saves a lot of time trying to explain to people who don't get what it's for.

If he doesn't hate them then he's not chaotic evil, I will say that.

And the rules aren't dictated if the person is typical, they are dictated what a person of that alignment would typically do. It doesn't matter how untypical they are, this is what everyone uses this alignment system.

And I'm not saying he is going to a good afterlife for this, he is going to a hell for the evil acts he did. I'm just explaining how he would get past a detect evil spell, because though he commits evil acts, his personality and motivations are not explained by an evil alignment.

And D&D rules disagree that it's case by case, with their rules of alignment, if you follow what the alignment says, you are that alignment.

You can commit evil acts, you can go to the afterlife that is deemed by your acts, and suffer the consequences of those evil actions. But if you cast detect evil on someone who is doing "good" then they will get nothing, and be able to walk right by.

>destroying evil isn't good
Oh no he's retarded

>And none of that establishes that murder is evil
Are you supposing that snuffing out the light of freedom, that denying a person all future, and causing large amounts of pain and suffering, if not to them then to their relations, is not Evil?
A paladin can excuse executing a bandit because the bandit has probably commited evil in plunder of goods and lives. You cannot excuse killing the bakers Sam and Sally because you feel like it.

But he isn't acting like an evil alignment, he's not killing for blood lust greed or hatred, he is helping people and following his conscience.

Alright bad example, so a serial rapist doesn't become LG because they do a ton of charity work.

I'm just glad my gms aren't retarded and try to make the alignment the defining aspect of the character, and just having it be another aspect like it's supposed too, nor any orc baby situations, especially considering I'm playing a paladin of freedom

Working against Evil is Good. Killing is Evil. If you combine the two, you get a Neutral act at best.

The most ideal would be putting a helm of opposite alignment on every Evildoer you meet, but that isn't realistic, so instead Good aligned characters have to make do with a few neutral killings instead as they go through their process of doing good deeds by saving people and other things.

I mean otherwise, Orcs would end up commiting a lot of Good acts when tribes go to war with eachother. A lone Ork Barbarian in the wilderness that does nothing but kill other Orks wouldn't suddenly become Good just for destroying Evil.

Wouldn't it become an aspect of culture to constantly check everyone?
Then there would be those who are "Egalitarian" and don't check anyone, making havens for ne'er-do-wells and outcasts.

Christ your adept at getting people to argue in circles

Motive doesn't matter. Evil action, alignment drop, collect 1 copper.

Holy shit user I can only hope this is just a shitpost.

Not by D&D rules, evil acts aren't even a thing. Your alignment is how you act. If you act with conscience and without care to other people that's Chaotic Good.

But if evil acts with penalties are a homebrew add on then yeah he would be totally evil.

Jesus Christ your like some kind of ai trying to understand the rules and taking everything too literally and to the exact word.

I mean I know attention is attention but come on.

RAW is the only calmness in the hurricane of online arguments.

If you don't have that, you have chaos.

>Being Lawful Evil social darwinist merchant
>Paladins break into my shop and murder me
>As I draw my last breath, I curse my decision of not giving a loaf of bread to that orphan
>Fuck, I would have pinged Lawful Neutral
>Descend into Baator
>Soul gets chainraped by kytons

God damn user I wish I could be a shitpost master like (you)

Maybe you can join me one day in the heavens. It's filled with frog posters Reddit users and CG psychos who commit evil actions.

He's pretty much right for 5e though

Top kek user.

Thank god there are other versions that are pantsu on head retarded
One can only hope

*arent

>offended
he'd be running

That argument kind of falls apart if you take into account the opinion of the guy actually being, y'know, murdered. Or his grieving family and friends. Or his kids that are starving on the street since the breadwinner just got gutted by a pretentious nutjob.

People only argue that morality is relative so long as they're not the ones being threatened. If you're in the middle of getting your throat sawed open by a rusty knife, you probably aren't going to think "well, this is fine, I'm sure he has good intentions".

So you're saying alignment should be like Fallout, where you can rape, murder, and pillage innocents, but because you also raped, murdered, and pillage bad guys, you're good?

Christ, all the useless discussion is the reason I don't play "Evil" campaigns and that stuff.
Retarded fedora modern moral relativism has no place in fantasy. Monsters are Evil, evildoers are Evil, heroes are Good.
Lunatics, rogues, shady merchants and folk like that is either Neutral, also known as "not important", or Evil if they actively do something Evil, easy like that.
Let me escape in a world with objective justice one time a week ;;,

This, there's a reason I play this shit, for once I'd love to just see good taking down evil without the constant grey area bull shit

It probably why I also am starting to love playing as Paladins

This with a side of self-defeatism for conceding that implicitly evil acts exist, and that murder is an evil act, therefore invalidating intent/motive as any sort of excuse or moral and ethical defense.

...

Gottarape all the evil user

All of it

Whenever I read over alignment threads like this, I can't help but feel that it's an unnecessary and even detrimental mechanic.

But did we also have to rape all the good?
My dick hurts and nuns don't know how to fuck properly anyway.

This would be an amazing setting.

A hundred year or so ago, a Kingdom, after the assassination of a beloved ruler by someone he trusted implicitly in an attempted coup, decides that this can never happen again. Detect Evil becomes the first and last word in matters of law, and eventually spreads out to all other aspects of their society. Alignment becomes equivalent to social class, and it seems to work at first... until people start figuring out how to game they system.

"Our rulers are Good," they say. As time goes by, it becomes "Those who rule are Good". And, eventually, "They rule us. They are Good. This is how it has always been.

"They told us so".

Any accusation of Evil turns into a witch hunt. The population is hyper focused on being Good, how they must be Good, and anyone who speaks out against they way their society is being run is obviously just another criminal.

It'd be some medieval fantasy blend of Judge Dredd, Pleasantville, and We Happy Few.

If they're going to paradise then that means they're good people and by killing them he is putting the Good to Evil ratio into the favour of Evil by decreasing the amount of Good on the currently occupied place of existence. This is why, for all his intentions, he is Evil.