No. If we assume that you have to target the wall it would at the very least stop after destroying the wall.
But by RAW, you can’t even cast it on something behind the wall, because you cannot target something (or someone) with a spell if they are behind total cover. Total cover is created by being completely behind an obstacle (like a wall). This counts even if the obstacle is invisible.
Furthermore, if you chose an invalid target for a spell, you still expend the spellslot but there will be no effect. So you'd actually spend a sixth level spell a lot to achieve nothing.
I would not recommend doing it this way, but that’s what the rules say.
I know that it would be out of character, but now I'm trying to make up a plan how this might work. If Mystery can counterspell, then if you send him along while disguised as someone else, it might be possible.
However, as you've said, it would not really accomplish much anyway and Konsi would never do it.
Ironaically enough, you just take either the horizontal or the vertical distance (whatever is longer) instead of calculating. I hate that rule and never use it, but that's what RAW says.
Partially. I think its fine to have that kind of thing. But not all the time. Bandits who are actually good people will avoid murder if possible. And while bad people can also have loved ones, that does not invalidate self defense.
Just as you said: Self defense is not murder-hoboing. If we are talking murder-hoboing then we should apply that list to city guards and commoners, who are not meant to be fought.
I get you wanted to do it for fun, but you sound like a horrible player to have at the table. There is a social contract involved in playing DnD and while disagreements between party members are all fine, your character was basically hindering the other characters at every step (at least from what you described).
While it has nothing to do with the first point: I also reject your interpretation of alignment. It's (at least from how I see it) not that you choose an alignment and then build a character around it, but that you build a character and then classify them with the alignment that fits their actions best. I know that some classes require certain alignments but even then there are a multitude of different ways to go about that alignment.
I think it is - in fact - the exact opposite of it. It's gaslighting and player vs. DM mentality. If I was a player, I would have a serious word with the DM afterwards and when I am the DM, I refrain from such actions altogether.
You are aware that most of DnDs mechanics are focused on simulating fights? If you do not like that, you are maybe playing the wrong system. Beyond that, how are you totally useless in combat? All classes get combat-abilities in one way or another and are designed to be at least moderately useful.
I agree. I normally don't do it, but I still like to know when I'm about to get hit with some of that stuff. There are... some bad memories attached to it.
Yes. See invisibility should work as well. Both are quite annoying to activate when in a fight though.
Edit: TIL that detect magic may not work, because the object has to be visible.