My Lich is Evil, but what kind of evil?

[loodwig]

I have a lich with a complicated backstory, and for the sake of combat (axiomatic vs anarchistic) I need to pick an alignment that makes sense. I present the following viewpoint, and would love open debate as to what alignment fits best with this viewpoint:

"The fate of the world is in the balance, and only I can stop it. I will find a way to save the world, no matter the cost. I must not die, and the lives of millions mean nothing if I can save billions. I'll destroy whole species if I have to, if it benefits my research."

While it may be viewed as noble from a certain point of view, the willingness to torture, poison, even commit genocide for the sake of potential scientific progress is decidedly evil (I think anyway... I mean at some point the ends do not justify the means). As for "is he really evil?" being asked, aside from his template requiring an evil alignment, I have put enough back story in him to have crossed the moral event horizon.

Here's my problem with all three options:

Lawful - the rules state there's a specific respect to state order. While "the greater good" is served, there is no nation of "greater good," and there is specifically a desire to remove the status quo.

Neutral - the rules state this is a purely selfish alignment of doing evil for the sake of evil. Excusing that the definition is ludicrous when compared to anything with a personality (no one is the villain in their own narrative), I just interpret this as "purely selfish." Saving the world is not a selfish act, even if ego deems the beholder to be the only one qualified to do so.

Chaotic - liberty and freedom as an end goal seems diametrically opposed to the idea of a personal mission. Though this makes me ask what the difference between neutral and chaos is, as I've often seen Chaotic Evil as pure malevolence that is on a rampage.

I could just make him Neutral Evil for the sake of spells, but that feels like a cop-out. I could also just ignore the alignment all together, as I'm aiming for a more realistic character that doesn't fit perfectly into any particular slot as I see it.

[atemu1234]

Evil is as evil does; for all we know he could be trying for redemption but has committed unspeakably evil acts before. No good creature could do aforementioned acts for themselves, but that doesn't mean that a creature who has done evil cannot be redeemed.

[Deophaun]

the rules
Well there's your problem.

If I get your character right, he's neutral. He'll bind the world to immutable law to achieve his goal if that will work. He will tear down all traces of civilization to achieve his goal if that will work. The struggle between law and chaos simply does not concern him except as a potential means, but he has no principled position on either.

[Maglubiyet]

I would think that his goals are irrelevant to his alignment with regards to Law/Chaos because he is operating outside of all norms of society here. In this case that aspect would cover his methodology in achieving his goals, not the goal itself.

Is he methodical and calculating, planning and executing each step according to a schedule? Lawful
Is he capricious and mercurial, acting on impulses, changing his strategy as he goes, even though his goal remains more or less fixed? Chaotic
Or does he see the value of a plan while remaining open to changes and not feeling compelled to follow either course exclusively? Neutral

[Troacctid]

When in doubt, neutral. If you're having trouble categorizing him on the Lawful-Chaotic axis, just make him Neutral Evil and say he has no strong tendency toward either side.

[endur]

Any of the three evil alignments. "I'll destroy whole species if I have to, if it benefits my research." The quote indicates that he is evil.

The quote does not indicate where he is on the Lawful/Neutral/Chaos spectrum.

I view Lawful Evil as somebody acting with society's sanction: The corrupt official or tyrant noble, etc.

I view chaotic evil as somebody acting outside society's sanction: homicidal maniac, mass murderer, etc.

I view neutral evil as somebody in-between: mafia (crooks but with organization), etc.

[bloodystone2]

If this was any character that wasn't a lich, I'd give him chaotic good or neutral good. Since he's a lich, trapping someones soul to become a lich and giving off a permanent negative aura (and not the attitude kind), I'd make him True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. He isn't above going outside the norm to achieve his goal and he isn't above killing people for his goals.

[dascarletm]

Lawful vs. Chaotic is best thought of as methodology. It has nothing to do with society, because in the absence of society lawful and chaotic still exist.

Does your character set out to accomplish his goals using internally defined rules/regulations/codes?

If your character has any sort of self imposed ideology does he loath to deviate from it, or does he not care?

Chaoticness isn't randomness so much as a way of thought.

Do you think inside or outside the box?

Are you predictable?


This helps define lawful vs. chaotic. However, this axis is usually hard to pin-point as many can and will have aspects of both.

Let me ask you this: When researching ways to save the world, does your character bounce from one idea to the next, moving from project to project as inspiration strikes him? Is his lab neat and organized or does he "have a system"?

[Spore]

He is true neutral in nature. Him however being a lich grants him automatical evil alignment as he is a being powered from negative energy (and he committed whatever vile act you thought his personal lich ritual was).

[OldTrees1]

Neutral - the rules state this is a purely selfish alignment of doing evil for the sake of evil. Excusing that the definition is ludicrous when compared to anything with a personality (no one is the villain in their own narrative), I just interpret this as "purely selfish." Saving the world is not a selfish act, even if ego deems the beholder to be the only one qualified to do so.

Concrete alignment definitions are rarely applicable. The more abstract (and thus more useful) definition of Neutral Evil is doing evil for its own sake. This is not to say be the villain of their own narrative. This means that they are only motivated by their beliefs in the Moral Axis(Good-Evil). This lich is trying to do the greater good for its own sake. Therefore the lich is NE unless there is something more you haven't told us.

[Deophaun]

Lawful vs. Chaotic is best thought of as methodology.
If this was true, it would be called Ordered vs. Chaotic. It's not, so it isn't.

It's also why the axis is stupid, because Law and Chaos are not actually opposites.

[Seto]

If this was true, it would be called Ordered vs. Chaotic. It's not, so it isn't.

It's also why the axis is stupid, because Law and Chaos are not actually opposites.

Order of any kind rests on laws. (Not only social laws, but natural laws, etc.). Laws are the possibility for reality to have a form and be understood, they are what turn the initial Chaos into a cosmos. When talking in terms of fundamental principles, Law and Order are substantially the same thing. And it does oppose Chaos as its antithesis. And dialectically reconciling the two is by definition a Neutral argument.

The rest of dascarletm's post actually develops his premise (the one you quoted and so quickly disregarded) in a quite convincing way, insofar as alignment might have to do with personality. (The rules are pretty botched regarding that point). I consider that a lot of that (save the will for coherence and the relationship to principles) had better be dropped, but we're entering the realm of interpretations and houserules.

[Sam K]

Based on OPs description, NE. The Lich isn't operating within any system or promoting order, but neither does he seem to be actively tearing them down or opposing them. He is single mindedly pursuing a goal that is evil (or the path towards it has become so aligned with evil that the end goal no longer matters) without concern for anything else. Textbook NE.

[Naanomi]

Depending on how much of a focus on 'the big picture' and 'research' you pursue it could be Lawful Evil; but I agree Neutral Evil is the most natural fit from the description

[Deophaun]

Order of any kind rests on laws. (Not only social laws, but natural laws, etc.). Laws are the possibility for reality to have a form and be understood, they are what turn the initial Chaos into a cosmos.
This can't be true, as that would imply Chaos has rules by which Law can regulate it. Which means Chaos is Law. Hence, not opposites.

The rest of dascarletm's post actually develops his premise (the one you quoted and so quickly disregarded)
Paladin of Freedom and Paladin of Slaughter say he's wrong.

[Seto]

This can't be true, as that would imply Chaos has rules by which Law can regulate it. Which means Chaos is Law. Hence, not opposites.

I don't understand your reasoning. Is this the "disorder is just another kind of order" argument ? Because it doesn't apply. A rule, or a law, by definition institutes permanence : "carrots are orange" or "if I drop a stone, it will fall to the ground". Chaos is the absence of that. If I drop a stone, it might fall, rise, hit me in the face or turn into a carrot. Except I can't drop a stone because there's nothing so permanent that it could be called "I" or "stone" ; that would be too organized. Impredictibility is not a rule. So, no, Chaos doesn't have rules. If you put order in Chaos, Chaos is gone, replaced by a cosmos. In a scientifically regulated world, in the big picture Law has won. But Chaos may remain where the universe remains irreductibly impredictable : human freedom, for example (if you believe in it), or inexplicable failure of natural laws, etc. In D&D, things like Limbo are an embodiment of that, because Law has only partly won (the focus is now on Good vs. Evil), meaning incomprehensible beings like Obyriths don't much exist anymore.


Paladin of Freedom and Paladin of Slaughter say he's wrong.

They're an argument for the fact that alignment has nothing to do with personality. Which is the very point the rules contradict themselves the most on. Additionally, they're stupid. I know I'm not making any kind of constructive point here, but these paladin variants are plain stupid. The transposition doesn't work : any way you look at it, that strict an adherence to a code is Lawful. (And there's nothing wrong with a Lawful person defending freedom. But... well, we're entering the contradiction again).

[atemu1234]

I don't understand your reasoning. Is this the "disorder is just another kind of order" argument ? Because it doesn't apply. A rule, or a law, by definition institutes permanence : "carrots are orange" or "if I drop a stone, it will fall to the ground". Chaos is the absence of that. If I drop a stone, it might fall, rise, hit me in the face or turn into a carrot. Except I can't drop a stone because there's nothing so permanent that it could be called "I" or "stone" ; that would be too organized. Impredictibility is not a rule. So, no, Chaos doesn't have rules. If you put order in Chaos, Chaos is gone, replaced by a cosmos. In a scientifically regulated world, in the big picture Law has won. But Chaos may remain where the universe remains irreductibly impredictable : human freedom, for example (if you believe in it), or inexplicable failure of natural laws, etc. In D&D, things like Limbo are an embodiment of that, because Law has only partly won (the focus is now on Good vs. Evil), meaning incomprehensible beings like Obyriths don't much exist anymore.



They're an argument for the fact that alignment has nothing to do with personality. Which is the very point the rules contradict themselves the most on. Additionally, they're stupid. I know I'm not making any kind of constructive point here, but these paladin variants are plain stupid. The transposition doesn't work : any way you look at it, that strict an adherence to a code is Lawful. (And there's nothing wrong with a Lawful person defending freedom. But... well, we're entering the contradiction again).

A code sworn to an order, maybe. I'd be inclined to agree. But a personal code of honor between you and your god is less lawful than that, otherwise there'd be no chaotic clerics.

[sideswipe]

i like the idea of a good guy not being good enough to be granted another form of immortality but wants to continue doing good forever so says " lich is only a little evil" then has to do a little a little more in the pursuit of good and more and more until every one only knows him as evil but he thinks hes still doing good.

[Seto]

A code sworn to an order, maybe. I'd be inclined to agree. But a personal code of honor between you and your god is less lawful than that, otherwise there'd be no chaotic clerics.

True, you're adhering to your God's values after all. I'm just arguing that, with Chaotic characters/Gods, such a code would be loosely defined and authorize deviance from time to time if you have a good reason. It would maybe serve as a guide rather than laws. It certainly shouldn't be a strict transposition from the Paladin's code with "freedom" replacing "honor" or what-have-you.

(Which is also the reason a Cleric has more relative freedom of interpretation and in upholding his faith than a Paladin does. They're close in principle, but don't really work the same).

[dascarletm]

If this was true, it would be called Ordered vs. Chaotic. It's not, so it isn't.

It's also why the axis is stupid, because Law and Chaos are not actually opposites.

The terms lawful and chaotic are simply the titles used to describe the alignment.
If there was no society in a campaign world with codified laws a character could still fall on this axis.


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties....
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.


Law very much is order. Otherwise Asmodeous could make a law saying no devils may try to usurp his position and be done with it.:smallwink:

[Deophaun]

In D&D, things like Limbo are an embodiment of that, because Law has only partly won (the focus is now on Good vs. Evil), meaning incomprehensible beings like Obyriths don't much exist anymore.
For Law to have "partly won," it assumes that Chaos and Law are playing the same game. In order to play a game, there must be rules. But, you argue that Chaos has no rules. Therefore, Law cannot have "partly won." Law is, in fact, an illusion. Simply Chaos being unpredictable by allowing itself to be predictable.

Imagine a game of chess. Law operates under the normal restrictions. Chaos, however, plays Calvinball, and sometimes Laws piece's are Chaos's pieces, it can win by surrendering, and captured pieces are free to invade the Risk game played nextdoor for reinforcements. In order for Law to meaningfully interact with Chaos, there needs to be something to constrain its opponent, like the board. However, "Must follow the conditions of the board" is now a rule that Chaos has to follow, which means that Chaos now has Law, so it no longer is.

This is why the Law/Chaos axis cannot hold.

The terms lawful and chaotic are simply the titles used to describe the alignment.
If there was no society in a campaign world with codified laws a character could still fall on this axis.
Because they would be inclined to create a society. A Lawful person cut off from society would be very uncomfortable.

[Seto]

For Law to have "partly won," it assumes that Chaos and Law are playing the same game. In order to play a game, there must be rules. But, you argue that Chaos has no rules. Therefore, Law cannot have "partly won." Law is, in fact, an illusion. Simply Chaos being unpredictable by allowing itself to be predictable.

Imagine a game of chess. Law operates under the normal restrictions. Chaos, however, plays Calvinball, and sometimes Laws piece's are Chaos's pieces, it can win by surrendering, and captured pieces are free to invade the Risk game played nextdoor for reinforcements. In order for Law to meaningfully interact with Chaos, there needs to be something to constrain its opponent, like the board. However, "Must follow the conditions of the board" is now a rule that Chaos has to follow, which means that Chaos now has Law, so it no longer is.

This is why the Law/Chaos axis cannot hold.

Because they would be inclined to create a society. A Lawful person cut off from society would be very uncomfortable.

First you argued that it cannot hold because they're not opposites, now you're arguing that it cannot hold because they can't exist at the same time in the same object (which is the definition of opposites). This is why any object susceptible of having either alignment (such as a spell or a human being) cannot be purely one or the other, because even the joint possibility adulterates them.

[Deophaun]

First you argued that it cannot hold because they're not opposites, now you're arguing that it cannot hold because they can't exist at the same time in the same object (which is the definition of opposites).
No, I'm arguing that if Chaos has no rules, then either Law is an incarnation of Chaos, or Chaos is an incarnation of Law. In other words: they must exist at the same time in the same object.

[Seto]

No, I'm arguing that if Chaos has no rules, then either Law is an incarnation of Chaos, or Chaos is an incarnation of Law. In other words: they must exist at the same time in the same object.

Oh, ok. Your remark as I understand it is one concerning the origins : if there was only Chaos, how does Law ever come in without being a production of Chaos ? So there's monism and not dualism ? The question is valid and interesting in and of itself (and your thesis has illustrious forerunners, though I don't agree with the form of your argument), but in D&D it doesn't make sense, because the base assumption that the universe is dualistic is given as true in the multiverse's cosmology. That's to say, Law didn't appear from Chaos but arose from the same primal source and opposed it, as a distinct thing, from the beginning. None is more fundamental than the other (I talked about the primal Chaos earlier, but that was not D&D, that was tracing it back to Greek mythology). So if you were a D&D character, your argument would hold, but ultimately :
1- be disproven by cosmological evidence.
2- place you firmly as Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis (as was covered in my first answer to you when I said that an attempt to reconcile them dialectically, which you just made, would be Neutral).

(Oh, and about the "they're playing a game so there're rules" argument : They're not playing a game. They're fighting an all-out war, without rules or conventions except the rule of their very nature (which in the case of Chaos is the absence of rules).)

[Deophaun]

Oh, ok. Your remark as I understand it is one concerning the origins : if there was only Chaos, how does Law ever come in without being a production of Chaos ? So there's monism and not dualism ?
That's only if we define Chaos in relation to rules. If, however, we state that the mere presence or absence of rules defines neither Law or Chaos, but rather the rules' form, such as the political Authority/Liberty axis, then the spectrum can make sense.

[Seto]

That's only if we define Chaos in relation to rules. If, however, we state that the mere presence or absence of rules defines neither Law or Chaos, but rather the rules' form, such as the political Authority/Liberty axis, then the spectrum can make sense.

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of your second sentence ; do you mean "the presence of absence of rules defines the rules' form" (which is what I get from your grammar, but I'm not a native English speaker so I might not grasp every subtlety), or "the rules' form define Law or Chaos" (I'm gonna provisionally go with this one because I can't make sense of the first interpretation) ?
In any case,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chaos
Definitions 1 to 3 are relevant to our question, and all of them include the word "disorder".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/law
A vast majority of the definitions, and pretty much every relevant one, includes words such as "order", "rule", "principle". The scientific sense of law includes "invariable/consistent".

I believe we have more than enough to define Law and Chaos in relation to rules and the presence of absence thereof. I'm still talking about cosmological principles.
Now, any form of organization is a product of Law. But, moving on to political forms of organization specifically, it is true that the rules' form determine the society's alignment, and society A might be authoritative and be Lawful, and society B might be pretty hands-off and thus Chaotic. But since it's still an organized society (thus lawful) and one built and agreed to by free people (thus chaotic), it can only be lawful and chaotic in the relative sense (which is yours), as opposed to the absolute sense (which is mine). Since this might be viewed as a contradiction in the rules, I'd be inclined to only select the absolute sense and ditch the relative sense, but that's on me.
So Law and Chaos change definitions according to whether they're considered for themselves as principles which are an alignment, or applied to a being that has an alignment (that's what I meant by "adulterated" or "relative"). In the first case, they're opposites and can't exist at the same time in the same object - actually, there's no object besides themselves. In the second sense, they have opposite tendencies but need a bit of the other to appear, and they must exist at the same time in the same object (even antagonistically) insofar as their being together is what allows the object to be.

We good ?

[Spore]

By this point the Lich is certainly chaotic evil because it causes unneeded terror for us all in form of another alignment discussion.

[Deophaun]

or "the rules' form define Law or Chaos" (I'm gonna provisionally go with this one because I can't make sense of the first interpretation)
That is the correct interpretation of my words. For the alignment axis to exist, Law and Chaos are like matter and anti-matter; opposites, but with shared principles. You can see a reflection of one in the other.

[Seto]

By this point the Lich is certainly chaotic evil because it causes unneeded terror for us all in form of another alignment discussion.

But lo, behold ! Just as OP's description hinted at, the Lich used horrendous means to actually achieve Good ends, as for once the discussion actually ended in a satisfying resolution which synthesized the argument of both parties !

As for OP, I don't think there's any compelling argument either way. Just place your Lich Neutral Evil by default and it should work just fine :)

[Shining Wrath]

If this was any character that wasn't a lich, I'd give him chaotic good or neutral good. Since he's a lich, trapping someones soul to become a lich and giving off a permanent negative aura (and not the attitude kind), I'd make him True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. He isn't above going outside the norm to achieve his goal and he isn't above killing people for his goals.

I think someone who is willing to send whole species to extinction because he *might* learn something is evil. Remember, all the evil people can justify their own behavior, at least to themselves. Villains don't say "I killed all those people because I'm bad". No, they killed them for The Glorious Cause. We, looking in from outside, say "The Glorious Cause wasn't worth it". OP says explicitly that he considers his lich to be evil - that is, that the cause is objectively not worth it.

To the OP: a person who is willing to work with others when that most readily advances his cause, but willing to work alone when that is the easiest path forward, can be called neutral on the law-chaos axis. He doesn't need any deep philosophy guiding him to neutrality; he just needs to not particularly care one way or the other.

[loodwig]

If this was any character that wasn't a lich, I'd give him chaotic good or neutral good.
He's definitely not good. At best, I'd call him Neutral. One question I'm only now asking myself is, "Why does he want to save the world?" Deep down, does he really care about those that he's saving if he's so easily willing to slaughter them? If he succeeds, is he just going to atone or destroy himself, or is he going to go on and try to profit from a living world that is no longer in peril? The implications of this question are disturbing and interesting :)



Let me ask you this: When researching ways to save the world, does your character bounce from one idea to the next, moving from project to project as inspiration strikes him? Is his lab neat and organized or does he "have a system"?
Lab is organized, he has hundreds working for him (most of which have a will of their own but are very loyal), which means he definitely has a system. But I go back to the fact that he doesn't have a strong sense of structure beyond the means to an end. Think Saruman (in the sense of commanding the Orcs, not as a character concept).


This lich is trying to do the greater good for its own sake. Therefore the lich is NE unless there is something more you haven't told us.
I agree with your sentiments. I haven't gone into great detail with regards to "what he did" to make himself evil / a lich, but suffice it to say, it crossed the moral event horizon (he intentionally destroyed a city).


Well there's your problem.
Yep!


Based on OPs description, NE. The Lich isn't operating within any system or promoting order, but neither does he seem to be actively tearing them down or opposing them. He is single mindedly pursuing a goal that is evil (or the path towards it has become so aligned with evil that the end goal no longer matters) without concern for anything else. Textbook NE.
That makes a lot of sense to me.


i like the idea of a good guy not being good enough to be granted another form of immortality but wants to continue doing good forever so says " lich is only a little evil" then has to do a little a little more in the pursuit of good and more and more until every one only knows him as evil but he thinks hes still doing good.
The phrase that inspired me to create this guy was "by any means necessary." There's something admirable about this dedication, but there's something fundamentally evil about being willing to do literally anything.


By this point the Lich is certainly chaotic evil because it causes unneeded terror for us all in form of another alignment discussion.
Yeah, I'm sorry about that.


But lo, behold ! Just as OP's description hinted at, the Lich used horrendous means to actually achieve Good ends, as for once the discussion actually ended in a satisfying resolution which synthesized the argument of both parties !

As for OP, I don't think there's any compelling argument either way. Just place your Lich Neutral Evil by default and it should work just fine :)
That's what I'm leaning towards.


I think someone who is willing to send whole species to extinction because he *might* learn something is evil. Remember, all the evil people can justify their own behavior, at least to themselves. Villains don't say "I killed all those people because I'm bad". No, they killed them for The Glorious Cause. We, looking in from outside, say "The Glorious Cause wasn't worth it". OP says explicitly that he considers his lich to be evil - that is, that the cause is objectively not worth it.

To the OP: a person who is willing to work with others when that most readily advances his cause, but willing to work alone when that is the easiest path forward, can be called neutral on the law-chaos axis. He doesn't need any deep philosophy guiding him to neutrality; he just needs to not particularly care one way or the other.
That pretty much describes his origin to a T. As a former Elf, his pre-lich life wasn't exactly without incident. He has never had any real loyalties, but his sociopathy really kicked in after becoming a Lich.


Yeah, this pretty much has helped me make up my mind. Neutral Evil it is. Thank you all.