Would you/your character be offended if someone cast Detect Evil on you/him?

God, I'm glad Detect Alignment isn't a thing in 5e.

I’ve seen a bunch of paladins like this.

Holy zealots tends to go the Alexander Anderson way a lot quicker than the Jonathan Joestar way. It seems like a lot of paladins are kinda “I joined the police to lol people” guys instead of nice guys protecting people.

I blame it on alignments in general.

I like the default Fantasy Craft assumption, in that "Detect Alignment" is a spell but it only works on things with an alignment, which would only include those devoted enough to purchase one. IE, any outsider, a Priest, a cultist of a dark god, etc. And alignments can be to things like Fire or War or Life, instead of just good/evil/law/chaos, as your alignment is to a deity or philosophy specifically. Joe Mikkels the child stabbing serial killer doesn't ping as Evil Alignment, but Thorkell Soulshitter the Blackguard High Priest pings 100%.

Depends on who did it. If it was just some random broad, he'd probably be a bit annoyed (and glad that he hasn't started using Soul Cage just yet), if it was a party member, it'd probably be some combination of "What the hell, you could just talk to me!" and maybe a wakeup call about his recent behavior (or a warning to not let the party see how far he's about to go).

>I blame it on alignments in general.
Alignment system has nothing to do with idiots, frustrated or sociopaths playing games to find an exhaust port for their urges.

My argument is in d&d they basically said “those guys are evil so it isn’t evil to kill them”. This started spiraling and now the alignment system is quite possibly the worst thing about d&d

But this is not how discourse over aligment worked in D&D books, from planescape to the fucking book of exalted deeds with the paladin undecided about the succubi porking.
Is way more nuanced that the meme let you think.

Whether or not it is nuanced is irrelevant. It’s stupid to have in a game and needs to be cut out.

Not at all. The systems we play do not have alignment so it would probably be analyzing our histories and personalities. If My character detected as "Evil" and was made aware of it, he would probably make an attempt to determine what his relevant qualities are and why they are labeled as such.

Yeah, probably. It's basically them admitting that they think you're a piece of shit.

As well as smite evil.
You should be able to smite things regardless of alignment.

>spell is shit

It's literally what makes a Paladin great. Instantly knowing which motherfucker to smite and which motherfucker can't be trusted.

Not unless your power source is against said thing.

>Is way more inconsistent than the meme lets you think
FTFY

BoVD calls out allowing fiends to exist as an evil act.

BoED has a paladin not falling while giving mercy to fiends.

One of those books was a 3e book, the other one was a 3.5 book.
For your example to actually hold water, you'd need to pull an example from Fiend Folio 1 or 2, which were both 3.5 books.

Is stupid for you because you are stuck in a meme mentality.

Of course not, got myself Angelskin Vestment for this very reason.

Even better. The authors don't even agree, which is fine because is impossible.
Use a scale suitable for the campaign, and avoid playing with psychopaths.

It’s not evil it’s unnecessary.

I don’t need alignments to tell if the dude killing dudes is evil, nor do I need them to tell if a dude is evil.

If used badly alignments ruin games, if used goodly it’s basically the same as not having them.

Probably she would make long rant about morality is not the same thing in all cultures, only to get backslapped by the dropout knight, who tells her that she is at least a insorpotable twat who likes killing people a bit too much.

Man again, if is such a trouble for you, your problem.
Myself, I find it more fascinating on the L/C axis, especially for fiends and their motivation.

Have you tried not playing 3.5?

5e doesn't have this issue

Anything used badly can ruin a game, but that is what meant when he said "meme mentality".
You are invested in this idea that alignments MUST be something negative, rather than something part and parcel to the setting.
I think what a lot of people forget is that alignment, while defined, is not set in stone by anyone other than the DM, who is the last and most important arbiter of how the world operates. The real issue there is most people, especially on this board, shit on GMs out of hand and heap mistrust on them. The idea of leaving something to the GMs purview, rather than a rule in a book, is unacceptable to them.

Honestly alignments are trouble because they tell you basically nothing. You can kinda justify most motivations by any alignment, to the point of pointlessness.

NG tells me basically nothing. “angry teenager with a soft spot that enjoys protecting innocent people” tells much more.

Even the political compass is better as an alignment.

>You can kinda justify most motivations by any alignment, to the point of pointlessness.
t. psychopath

If you approach them from a position of contempt and a desire to twist them to what you want, rather than what they are, then yes, they don't work.

Really, Detect Evil is more supposed to be about discovering discrete evils rather than to judge literally everyone. I wouldn’t permit players to get away with playing the class like that example without appropriately punishing it.

Alignment tells you the general disposition of the person on the good/evil and law/chaos axes. You don’t need anything else from them, they aren’t FOR much else until you start invoking cosmic powers.

I tend to rule that detect evil is a fairly visible spell that really makes your eyes glow.

This is even an option in Heroes of Horror.
Also settings with Taint makes you careful because paladins know that good people could be contaminated and show Evil even if they are good.
Literally is bad only for faggots like this one That want to be mad at alignment no matter what.

Riddle me this.

Enrico Pucci from Jojos
He...
>kills prisoners which is a (neutral good)
>focuses on fulfilling his best friends dieing wish (neutral good)
>kills innocent people (evil)
>only kills to make what he thinks is a better world (neutral-good)
>helps the poor (good)
>tries to spare his sister from incest without breaking her heart (good)
>doesn’t have the heart to kill his brother, despite him being pretty dang evil (good-neutral)

What alignment is Pucci?

Consider the more recent Oath of Redemption subclass from 5e, which at the end of its description says this:

>"While redeemers are idealists, they are no fools. Redeemers know that undead, demons, devils, and other supernatural threats can be inherently evil. Against such foes, the paladins bring the full wrath of their weapons and spells to bear. Yet the redeemers still pray that, one day, even creatures of wickedness will invite their own redemption."

I'd say that kind of fluff allows for a range somewhere between "Everything can and must be redeemed! I'm sure we can talk out our differences, Mr. Orcus!" and "SMITE AND TEAR". Really, the question is, "What makes the best story?"

In practice, I think the standard M.O. should be, "Fiends are evil, kill them when possible, but if one asks for your help or throws themselves on your mercy, use your best judgement and remember that even fiends have the ability to change."

>Detect Evil is more supposed to be about discovering shapeshifted/glamoured demons and powerful undead as well as the mortal servants of dark powers
Fixed for you.

If it doesn't work without consent, then anyone who doesn't consent is evil.

Considering how you have repeatedly fucked up classing different things by alignment on top of clearly not realizing what "character alignment" means, I will invite you to reread the book and figure it out for yourself.

Chaotic Neutral.

Or underage - children can't consent (unless you live in AnCapistan)

I mean, you basically said the same thing with more specifics, but sure.

>5e
Using Divine Sense on somebody should be flattery.

Imagine being a woman and having someone suspect you of being a succubus enough to expend divine power ensuring themselves of that fact.

Turns out, no demon powers necessary. You're just that damn sexy.

No, user, detect evil came into existence specifically for that purpose, because without it, outside of high level magic, you can't tell if a person in a group of people is a succubus in disguise.
Detect Evil had an actual point and purpose behind it that was lost to memery.

He works at a prison and follows a religion.

Chaotic is the one alignment that is a bit hard to justify.

He can be good, as he honestly trying to help humanity. Neutral, as he is avenging his friend and breaking a few eggs in his omlette. Or evil, as he kills people and is trying to wipe out a family.

At this point it’s basically impossible to classify him in an alignment.

No. That's what misdirection is for.

This is
I)a lot of personal stuff, remmeber that evil people can respect friendship even if business often gets in the way. This about Salvatore Tessio in the Godfather.
II) You did not give the true motivation of the killing (if is for pleasure, greater good etc).
(II), in detail, is a huge giveaway of your inability to understand morality.

>He works at a prison and follows a religion.
>Chaotic is the one alignment that is a bit hard to justify.
lmao this guy

You have to give us the motivations of the killing user

>Veeky Forums hates alignments because they don't understand them
>Veeky Forums is full of murderhobos who don't understand things like empathy or morality
I think Veeky Forums might just be full of psycopathic autists.

This is the conclusion for this kind of thread.
Write shit like this without even THINKING about writing down the motivation is kinda scary.

I'm pretty sure it only works for clerics who act as channels of their evil gods and creatures made of pure evil.

I don't see how Jonathan Joestar qualities as a zealot. He was a lot more of a monk than a paladin anyway

He is honestly doing it for the greater good, as he believes it will make people happy.

This is the big issue, ever single person will classify Pucci a different way, making alignments kinda pointless.

Nearly everyone, however would classify him as a “religious zealot trying to avenge his best friend and make a new universe to help humanity, he is not above breaking eggs to do so.”

>This is the big issue, ever single person will classify Pucci a different way, making alignments kinda pointless.
Because most people here speak in memes and lacks insight
>Nearly everyone, however would classify him as a “religious zealot trying to avenge his best friend and make a new universe to help humanity, he is not above breaking eggs to do so.”
LE. Case dismissed.

LE

He willingly breaks laws and is actively trying to help people.

Other evil people generally ping as evil generically unless they actually have some amount of power, but those other things you mentioned gain an aura depending on how powerful. It lets you differentiate between “evil but not particularly threatening” and “cosmically or seriously dangerous evil.”

Not this shit again.
The mafia actively breaks the law and is LE.

>is actively trying to help people
for which reasons? He could do that for fame.
Or because he thinks is right but has no feeling for them and gets rid of people if they are an obstacle.
If he genuinely feels, LN. In the sense of greater justice is bestest thing ever, but can compromise on morality.

Or, you know, the character is a shitty written incoherent mess.

He is literally one of the nicest characters.

He kills people to gain a stand that lets him reset the universe with new rules. He seeks to let people know their destinies, because so many crappy things happened in his life he feels if he had known that those things would happen regardless he would have accepted his role and been happy.

He wants to make people happy and not let them suffer as he did.

MMMh.. it looks like a setting with an extreme morality in general.
>He kills people to gain a stand that lets him reset the universe with new rules.
What the hell this even means?
Also, like friendship, niceness is less related to evil and good than expected.

>would you be offended if someone searches your backpack without your consent?
a bit

Stands are basically superpowers.

Pucci has to kill 14 sinners (and well, a bunch of other things) to make his stand able to do that

Never mind man I did read about the setting and the character.
You are a psychopath with no moral compass.
Have a nice day.

LE.

I have a moral compass it’s called utilitarianism

Not really. For one, being a semi-monstrous race he's used to being feared at first despite looking friendly, and for two, chances are the casting would return some invalid value like "Low Noble" or something equally useless.

In fact only an edgelord would not understand why that spaghettinigger is clearly evil.
Also, you are not honest yourself, because you skipped loads of facts to muddle the analysis.
In other terms, you dislike the alignment system because it despises your egotistical worldview.

im not a celestal or demon

Pucci does evil things to help people, he is not evil in the d&d terms.

The big issue is that you are trying to fit a character into an alignment, rather than just letting a character be a character.

>Pucci does evil things to help people, he is not evil in the d&d terms.
I give up right here.

Doing evil for nonevil reasons is still doing evil. You can be evil and do “good.” Intent means something, but action matters a lot.

Then every hero is also evil, as they kill and maim just as much as Pucci did.

This is what I meant.
It means that the guy is not honest and wants just to create a strawman for the Alignment System.
No need to waste time any longer.

It will only works on creatures with an evil aura, which requires 5 or more HD. That alone means it's useless against random commoners.

>Pucci does evil things to help people
I don'y know shit about alignment, but surely such a simple and widespread case was addressed in the explaination of the alignments?

Yes.
You do evil things, you are evil.
You can always achieve the same ends without cruelties, it's just harder, or in the case of the above, contrived by author fiat.
There is no "Greater Good, so I am Good" in D&D. You can be ruthless in executing the law or exacting justice on those deserving, but you can't hide behind the shield of "I'm doing it for everyone's own good!".

Then every paladin and angel is evil except for the pacifists.

Nox is a great example here.
He is tragic, yes, even sympathetic, but he was an evil, genocidal bastard at the end.

Acting selflessly is Good. Being willing to be villified by society to save countless lives sounds pretty selfless.

Killing is not inherently evil if you are defending someone or bringing them to justice, like I said, dummy.
Contrived author fiat. Stop trying to spin it, user, you aren't Trump.

That’s sure sounds like double standards to me.

If killing is evil then killing is evil, regardless.

Alignment drives actions, actions don't drive alignment. I've played plenty of evil characters that have done plenty of good things, all in the name of not getting curbstomped by goodie-two-shoes and building a reputation that can later be used to manipulate.
More importantly, Pucci only THOUGHT he was doing good. He was changing the rules of fate of everyone in the world without their consent.

The definition of Evil includes "killing, oppressing or harming sentient beings". By your own logic, any sort of killing is evil, if you can't rely on the selflessness of your actions to make it Neutral or Good.

Except it's not, depending on the situation.
That's why there is a difference between cutting down bandits and slaying a man in a bar who insulted you.
No more (you)s, now, user.

Nope, an user found a contradiction between something written by two different authors years apart, plus he had a terrible experience at the table when he was 14, and that totally invalidates the entire concept forever. It's just how things work.
In other news, fuck Order of the Stick. It was never good.

>user makes sweeping claims of objective morality of certain actions devoid of context or intent
Every single time alignment comes up.

It is literally a double standard.

Pucci is being selfless and defending people from being hurt by fate.

And actively avenging his friend and hurting criminals.

If killing is evil regardless of intentions, than killing is evil regardless of intentions.

No. He's learned not to be offended by most of what people do to him, because of the constant risk of exploding into a Warp portal.

Being Psyker is suffering.

I wouldn't mind since I have nothing to fear. People need to remember that since it's a good spell, it's guaranteed that however is casting it is good too.
>all those people trying to cheat the system
Guess people here have a lot to fear.

>discussion about dnd alignment using jojo characters
are you people serious

It's like if a robot cast Detect Logic on you and you ping Illogical for even the smallest emotional outburst in your childhood.

You have something to fear from ANYONE whose mindset is alien to yours, whether the cosmology says they're objectively good or not.

Someone who can see the darkness in your soul that even YOU can't? Who's to say he won't cut you down then and there to make sure you never do it again? You don't know, you're just some peasant. No one wants to be laid bare.

To be laid bare - that's weakness. That's vulnerability. And whether the paladin kills you or not, if even one witness sees him notice something, they will use it against you for as long as you live. Nature abhors vulnerability.

Pucci is at best neutral evil because he's remaking everything in a vision of what he decides is the best outcome. Plus the fact that he technically mass murdered the entire first universe overrides any good things he's done.
pic related.