If a kingdom is ruled legitimately and fairly (enough) by a lich? [Archive] - Page 2

The Aboleth

2017-04-03, 10:38 AM

By the by, he was king for 72 years and has 2 sons, but those sons have no children at all? That seems rather . . . implausible. Indeed, the king has no nephews? Cousins? Any reasonable relations that he could fairly pass the throne to? Even an advisor of noble heart and competence? He must continue to rule?

I'd imagine that the older son probably does have children, but either doesn't know or doesn't care to raise them--he's written as a hedonistic playboy who cares nothing for responsibility. As for the younger son, I think he'd view having children as an inefficient waste of time and resources--and thus, would have consciously chosen to not have any. As for the question of "no cousins/anyone else fit to rule?" --the Wizard-King clearly didn't think there was anyone else who possessed ALL the qualities necessary to rule effectively. Whether that was true OR was in fact a false conclusion brought on by extreme hubris, is a big part of the question.

And his sons must die? They cannot be imprisoned or exiled?

The sons' deaths are necessary because it is part of the lich-ification process (or at least, that's what I tried to imply when I wrote the story). Since the actual process is left up to DM discretion, narratively-speaking I imagined it in this case to require something that more or less amounted to "murdering your own flesh-and-blood."

He has ruled for 72 years but despite his efforts at unification, if his sons survive the kingdom will immediately fall back into factionalism and war? That doesn't sound as if he were particularly successful at ruling in the first place.

Again, the sons surviving isn't, in a vaccuum, what will cause the kingdom to fall. The Wizard-King certainly thinks that if either of them were to rule, they'd fail at maintaining stability and/or prosperity--but if a scenario were to exist where they could live and NOT rule, he'd have taken that option (or so the story seems to indicate). He had to kill them in order to become a lich--if becoming a lich didn't require that, he wouldn't have done it.

As to the second point--there are plenty of real-world examples of nations ruled largely by a single person that immediately fall into chaos and anarchy upon the leader's death. I drew from those when coming up with the story idea.

He is not indulging his desire to rule and wallowing in the power like his older son how exactly?
He is not being dispassionately logical no matter the consequences like his younger son just because he cries about it afterward?
His people will trust him not massacre them if they fail to meet standards after he slaughtered his own children for the same "crime"?

This is the heart of the matter, yes. This thread has, in part, been exploring the question of "Can a lich be good?" In coming up with a "good" (or at least "not Evil") lich, there can (in my opinion) be only two options:

1.) The lich has always been "good," but must have a plausible justification to undergo the inherently evil process of becoming a lich (this is what I try to explore in my story).

2.) The lich has always been "evil" but undertakes "good" actions because they are conducive to his own schemes/desires (this is what the eru001 explored in their story of "Bob the Lich").

At the end of the day, the process of becoming a standard D&D lich is an evil act. It requires that something horrible to be done, so if you're going to run with the premise of a "good or not evil" lich you have to explain in some manner why the person chose to make the "evil" decision. Now, your opinion might be "ANYONE who chooses to become a lich is inherently Evil," and that's fine. Heck, I might even agree with you--I think you can make a pretty good case that the Wizard-King is making a selfish decision that is motivated by hubris, but is unwilling to admit that fact so he chooses to believe it is "for the greater good." In trying to run with the concept of a "possibly not Evil lich," I came up with the story of the Wizard-King of Sevillus.

He's evil. He killed two people for no reason other than to become a lich. The specific reason why often isn't as important as the specific act, there are myriad other answers to the question of succession and lichdom was the one that was chosen. Its an act of tremendous hubris and arrogance to assume only the Wizard-King can keep things in control.

Again, I think this gets to the heart of the question "Can a lich be good?" If you're taking an "ends don't justify the means" approach, then the answer is probably "No, a lich cannot be good."

Add to that the fact the Wizard-King knows any other evil actions required to continue being a lich and you have a recipe for that person that makes one decision that changes them forever.

Fair point, though if I were to write around this fact I'd say that the "death penalty" in the kingdom would be understood to mean "Your soul is fed to our lord's phylactery." Don't want this punishment? Don't do something to warrant the death penalty. Of course, while being technically "lawful" it's probably not very "good." Maybe you can make a case for "neutral," I'm not sure.

Depends, I mean the Wizard-King did murder his own children for to his gain.

Indeed, that's one way to look at it. I think an argument could be made that he murdered his sons to ensure the safety of his kingdom (if we assume, as he does, that the Wizard-King alone is the only person capable of keeping everything from falling to ruin). Again, the act of becoming a lich is inherently capital "e" Evil (if we're talking standard liches and not including archliches or anything like that). If you're going to imagine a lich that is not, overall, capital "e" Evil then you still need to come up with a reason why they turned to Lichdom because the act/process can't be separated from its inherent evilness. Maybe that means all liches are evil and there's no getting around that, or maybe it means that one (admittedly horribly Evil) decision does not define an entire person's existence. I think the second supposition is more of an uphill battle, but can be argued.

By any stretch that would require justice for the dead. Perhaps the Wizard-King being reasonable accepts the Paladin's justice and begs them to take on the mantle of ruler. Or maybe they don't and it ends up in a fight where the people proclaim that paladin the new monarch of Sevillus. It wouldn't exactly be unrealistic for the people to follow a more popular foreign conqueror in favour of the person one would normally assume as the rightful heir.

Yeah, if we accept the Wizard-King as a fundamentally "good" person who feels--wrongly--that he was forced to make a horrible decision, I think he could accept the first outcome. If the Paladin successfully convinces the Wizard-King that it was not love for his kingdom, but hubris that motivated his decision to become a lich...yeah, I think he steps downs and turns over rulership of Sevillus to the Paladin.

Alternatively, if you're of the belief that ALL liches eventually succumb to Evilness due to the corrupt and vile nature of being an undead wizard, then he probably doesn't admit he was wrong in the first place and fights the Paladin.

That's even assuming the story about how the Wizard-King became a lich is public knowledge. There will be rumours, and supposition but after a while it will just be normal. In a century or two it will be just the way things are.

I'd imagine it would become public knowledge--if not right away, then certainly not after too long. Some would oppose the whole thing on principle, but I imagine some could be convinced that the act was a "great sacrifice" on the Wizard-King's part--he chose the welfare of millions over his own sons, these people would say, and he carries the guilt of his actions for eternity yet still he shoulders the responsibility of rulership in a just, fair, and compassionate manner. As the centuries passed and the kingdom continued to prosper, maybe even ALL the dissenters would eventually be convinced that the results can no longer be denied--that the evilness of being a lich is outweighed by his benevolent and prosperous reign.

Of course, that could all be state-sponsored propaganda meant to build up the Wizard-King's virtues in order to wash away his horrible sins. I think it depends on who you ask.

Tiktakkat

2017-04-03, 11:40 AM

I'd imagine that the older son probably does have children, but either doesn't know or doesn't care to raise them--he's written as a hedonistic playboy who cares nothing for responsibility. As for the younger son, I think he'd view having children as an inefficient waste of time and resources--and thus, would have consciously chosen to not have any. As for the question of "no cousins/anyone else fit to rule?" --the Wizard-King clearly didn't think there was anyone else who possessed ALL the qualities necessary to rule effectively. Whether that was true OR was in fact a false conclusion brought on by extreme hubris, is a big part of the question.

Since you didn't include any consideration of them, then clearly the answer is that he is driven by extreme hubris.

The sons' deaths are necessary because it is part of the lich-ification process (or at least, that's what I tried to imply when I wrote the story). Since the actual process is left up to DM discretion, narratively-speaking I imagined it in this case to require something that more or less amounted to "murdering your own flesh-and-blood."

Are they?
He couldn't just kill someone else?
That is really forcing the narrative in order to carve out some exemption - the king had to murder his sons because it was the only way to perform the ritual, so it is not really his fault.

Again, the sons surviving isn't, in a vaccuum, what will cause the kingdom to fall. The Wizard-King certainly thinks that if either of them were to rule, they'd fail at maintaining stability and/or prosperity--but if a scenario were to exist where they could live and NOT rule, he'd have taken that option (or so the story seems to indicate). He had to kill them in order to become a lich--if becoming a lich didn't require that, he wouldn't have done it.

As to the second point--there are plenty of real-world examples of nations ruled largely by a single person that immediately fall into chaos and anarchy upon the leader's death. I drew from those when coming up with the story idea.

Now you are forcing the outcome in an attempt to exculpate the king. - he has to continue ruling, despite his previous successes, because he is the only one who can keep things together, so he doesn't really have a Messiah Complex, he actually is one, so he isn't really evil for choosing to do it by becoming a lich and murdering his children.

This is the heart of the matter, yes. This thread has, in part, been exploring the question of "Can a lich be good?" In coming up with a "good" (or at least "not Evil") lich, there can (in my opinion) be only two options:

Not really. That was forced into the thread. The original post was rather clear that the lich was evil, just not that evil - or something, so maybe it could be tolerated for some reason.
All the wallowing in whether or not a lich can sparkle like a vampire is a complete distraction from that question.
Now if the thread was, "Is there some way someone can be a non-mindless undead and not be inherently evil?", then all the angsting over the justifications for a non-evil lich would be the heart of the matter.

1.) The lich has always been "good," but must have a plausible justification to undergo the inherently evil process of becoming a lich (this is what I try to explore in my story).

And that's the thing - you don't have a particularly plausible justification.
There are way too many questions unanswered, and way too many forced conditions, to leave you with anything but an extremely forced justification that do little but highlight the usual excuses of an abuser or tyrant.

2.) The lich has always been "evil" but undertakes "good" actions because they are conducive to his own schemes/desires (this is what the eru001 explored in their story of "Bob the Lich").

Which is a false dichotomy.
Just because you are Evil doesn't mean you have to kick every puppy and eat every kitten that crosses your path.
Doing something benevolent out of pure self-interest does not "balance" being a callous murderer as your day job.

At the end of the day, the process of becoming a standard D&D lich is an evil act. It requires that something horrible to be done, so if you're going to run with the premise of a "good or not evil" lich you have to explain in some manner why the person chose to make the "evil" decision. Now, your opinion might be "ANYONE who chooses to become a lich is inherently Evil," and that's fine. Heck, I might even agree with you--I think you can make a pretty good case that the Wizard-King is making a selfish decision that is motivated by hubris, but is unwilling to admit that fact so he chooses to believe it is "for the greater good." In trying to run with the concept of a "possibly not Evil lich," I came up with the story of the Wizard-King of Sevillus.

Exploring "why" doesn't change what it is. As such, you wind up not with an examination of whether a lich can be Good, but just how far a lich can go in justifying its Evil to itself.
As poor as it was otherwise, the Ravenloft setting was full of Darklords constructed on that basis. While your story is better than a lot of the ones in that, it still doesn't break the binary nature of the question, or add any particular new dimension to a rather standard villain trope. It is still just another evil undead wizard-king with a "tragic" past.

As it happens, I have one of those in my campaign background.
And the lich is fully justified as his enemies brutally murdered his entire noble House, allied with a viciously Evil lich, pursued him while alive in the name of imperial power, and subverted the people it ruled into betrayal.
The lich is still an Evil undead monster, even in its self-imposed exile.

The Aboleth

2017-04-03, 12:26 PM

Since you didn't include any consideration of them, then clearly the answer is that he is driven by extreme hubris.

I think I stated that I had given them consideration. I get your skepticism about the fact that a person who has ruled for 72 years wouldn't have any grandchildren or other family, but frankly there are plenty of people in the real world who live to old age and don't have any children or grandchildren. It might not be the "common" thing, but it's not so rare as to be implausible.

Are they?
He couldn't just kill someone else?
That is really forcing the narrative in order to carve out some exemption - the king had to murder his sons because it was the only way to perform the ritual, so it is not really his fault.

As I and others have mentioned before, the actual process of becoming a lich is left up to DM discretion--the exact details aren't spelled out to allow DMs the creative freedom to adapt the process to their individual campaign settings. So in the instance of my story: No, he couldn't just kill anyone else because I felt that the murders had to be about people he had a deep, personal connection with. Requiring the sons to die as part of the process ratchets up the Evilness of the lich-making process to 100--or at least, that's what I had hoped to convey (as well as providing some emotional turmoil to the decision on the part of the Wizard-King). You are free to feel that explanation is contrived, but it is the explanation I came up with for the purposes of exploring whether a person can or cannot be fundamentally "good" while still deciding to become a lich.

Now you are forcing the outcome in an attempt to exculpate the king. - he has to continue ruling, despite his previous successes, because he is the only one who can keep things together, so he doesn't really have a Messiah Complex, he actually is one, so he isn't really evil for choosing to do it by becoming a lich and murdering his children.

I'm attempting no such thing. I think I've been pretty clear in presenting such viewpoints from the Wizard-King's perspective, but as far as my own views are concerned I even mentioned that I leaned more towards your opinion that the character is likely acting out of hubris and unwilling to admit it. I simply wrote a story to play devil's advocate because I find the question interesting and would like to explore the possibilities.

Not really. That was forced into the thread. The original post was rather clear that the lich was evil, just not that evil - or something, so maybe it could be tolerated for some reason.
All the wallowing in whether or not a lich can sparkle like a vampire is a complete distraction from that question.
Now if the thread was, "Is there some way someone can be a non-mindless undead and not be inherently evil?", then all the angsting over the justifications for a non-evil lich would be the heart of the matter.

Ok, now you're getting oddly aggressive. I never likened anything to sparkly vampires, for one, and while I agree the thread didn't begin with that question it's nonetheless relevant to the discussion at hand. If you find it to be a distraction, that's your right, but then why are you engaging in said discussion if that's how you feel?

And that's the thing - you don't have a particularly plausible justification.
There are way too many questions unanswered, and way too many forced conditions, to leave you with anything but an extremely forced justification that do little but highlight the usual excuses of an abuser or tyrant.

That is certainly your opinion, and I thank you sincerely for sharing it. Feedback like this helps me grow as a writer, so I appreciate it.

Which is a false dichotomy.
Just because you are Evil doesn't mean you have to kick every puppy and eat every kitten that crosses your path.
Doing something benevolent out of pure self-interest does not "balance" being a callous murderer as your day job.

I never said anything of the sort. I agree with the overall point you are making that "Evil" doesn't require you to be "Evil" 100% of the time. As for whether or not benevolent acts "balance" evil ones--that's kind of the point of contention, and again I'm inclined to agree with you but also want to explore the other side of the argument.

Exploring "why" doesn't change what it is. As such, you wind up not with an examination of whether a lich can be Good, but just how far a lich can go in justifying its Evil to itself.

That's certainly one conclusion you can draw. As I said before, the process of becoming a lich is inherently Evil--there's no way to get around that fact (using standard D&D liches). So it sounds like your position (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that "Anyone who chooses to become a lich, whatever their justification(s), is Evil." I can get behind that argument, myself, but I also think you can make a strong argument that is not the case. Maybe I haven't done a good job of it with my story, but I still think someone out there can make such an argument (it'd be an uphill battle, as I said before, but I think it can be done).

As poor as it was otherwise, the Ravenloft setting was full of Darklords constructed on that basis. While your story is better than a lot of the ones in that, it still doesn't break the binary nature of the question, or add any particular new dimension to a rather standard villain trope. It is still just another evil undead wizard-king with a "tragic" past.

I've never played/read about the Ravenloft setting, so I can't really comment on this part except to say that pretty much all characters can fall into one trope or another. There's almost nothing new under the sun.

As it happens, I have one of those in my campaign background.
And the lich is fully justified as his enemies brutally murdered his entire noble House, allied with a viciously Evil lich, pursued him while alive in the name of imperial power, and subverted the people it ruled into betrayal.
The lich is still an Evil undead monster, even in its self-imposed exile.

See, if I were to argue against the point you seem to be making to me, I'd say that the lich is NOT justified in his actions because murder is still murder and whatever horrible acts were visited upon him still do not justify his own horrible actions in turn. The lich is a free-willed individual who is in complete control of how he reacts to the world around him--the fact that he chooses to "fight fire with fire" doesn't justify his actions, it just means he's not shy about admitting he's comfortable being an arsonist, himself.

Psyren

2017-04-03, 12:55 PM

Has anyone brought up Geb yet, a country in Pathfinder that actually has this conundrum? Well, the true head of state is a Ghost, but his lich queen is doing the actual governing and the entire country is teeming with undead (both intelligent and not.) Paladins have wisely started leaving the place alone after the last high-level batch (who had taken down another famous lich in the setting) ended up getting rekt and reanimated as graveknights.

Almarck

2017-04-03, 01:17 PM

Psyren

2017-04-03, 01:27 PM

In Pathfinder, the lichdom process is defined, hasn't it? Like, I think it was offering your soul to a demon.

It's evil but I'm not sure it's more defined than that. AFAIK Arazni's own process didn't involve a fiend but I could be wrong.

icefractal

2017-04-03, 01:29 PM

You mean he would look at events, consider the various possibilities, then calmly murder anyone who might fall short of his standards of performance and concern for others, wailing and moaning every time he has to slaughter another person, family, village, or even province, because he so regrets having to take their lives "for the greater good".I don't think that follows. To paraphrase Colossus:
"Everyone thinks it's a full-time job. Wake up evil. Brush your teeth evil. Go to work evil. Not true."
By a few evil acts when it's most important, or evil acts only against some groups and not others, someone can be evil-aligned, while being nice to people the rest of the time.

The OP's not even talking about a non-evil Lich, and that wouldn't be as interesting a situation anyway. This is about a Lich that is evil, that a Paladin would want to bring to justice, but that is also doing a good job ruling a kingdom of primarily non-evil citizens, who would be hit by the fallout of their ruler's destruction. It's a dilemma, and I don't think there is a single right answer. I wouldn't say a Paladin should fall for either action or inaction here, there are arguments for either.

I guess the ideal solution would be "Smite the Lich, while having a better ruler waiting in the wings, with enough support to ensure a peaceful transition and very little chaos in the process." Easier said than done, but not an impossibility.

Segev

2017-04-03, 02:42 PM

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-03, 02:47 PM

Psyren

2017-04-03, 02:53 PM

Personally, I'd rather know what the act is, and consider its moral implications for myself, rather than be told "trust us, it's big-E Evil, mkay?".

Ask your GM - that's the point.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-03, 03:06 PM

Ask your GM - that's the point.

Makes it hard to actually discuss the matter here, if there's no actual answer beyond "it depends".

The Aboleth

2017-04-03, 03:09 PM

It's important to remember this: if you think it's a justifiable, non-evil act, then it probably isn't whatever is required as part of the lich ritual. What is required by the lich ritual - whatever it is - is horrible. So vile, so evil, that nobody Good could truly justify it. Self-deluded rationalizations may apply, but that would be the closest one could come.

I agree, and I don't shy away from this fact at all. Murder is evil, murdering your children in order to gain immortality is probably more evil than that. What I'm interested in is the question of "Does committing this evil act, when weighed against decades of good deeds beforehand and centuries of good deeds after, still make the person Evil?" I think you can make an argument that while the act is undeniably Evil, the person might not be completely evil themselves but have convinced (or, if you prefer, deluded) themselves into thinking this one Evil decision was the only way to achieve the Good end they sought.

It's like the classic question of "Would you murder a baby if you knew that baby would grow up to be Hitler?" Murdering a baby is undeniably an Evil thing to do, but if potentially doing so could keep Hitler from committing genocide later in life...well, the question becomes murkier on whether or not you are still a "good" person for having killed that baby. That's what I'm trying to explore here in terms of lich-dom and who chooses to undergo it (without straying too far into "morally justified" territory, of course).

icefractal

2017-04-03, 03:22 PM

This is homebrew, obviously, but I had an interesting idea about what makes the Lich process evil. Usually the reason is implied to be a single extremely evil act, but what if it was an ongoing situation instead?

So the phylactery keeps you alive moving despite the ravages of time and even despite being destroyed. Where does it get that energy? It takes it from the world. Specifically, from the lifespans of humanoids everywhere.

Every year a Lich lives, random humanoids somewhere (more often the ones located closer to the Lich, but it could be anyone) have a year of lifespan drained. That could be spread across multiple people or not.

Dying and being regenerated by the phylactery is hideously worse - it drains an entire lifespan's worth. So for a Human Lich, that's 81 (on average) years drained, which again could be split up among a bunch of people or wipe out a few unlucky ones completely.

If you want it nastier, make that a year per HD. So a 15th level Lich drains 15 HD-years: 5 years to a 3rd level character, for example. Since most people are low-level, a Lich is generally draining a lot more than a year per year. And when it regenerates - yow; 1215 HD-years for a 15th level Human Lich!

Is your extended lifespawn worth stealing time from everyone else? Even if you think it is, don't expect others to agree! And the more Liches out there, the worse the situation gets.

If I was going with this, I'd probably extend it to all undead, although with some variance:
* Mindless undead aren't as bad, because they can drain lifespan from any living creature, not just humanoids. It still could hit a person though.
* "Hungry" undead like Ghouls and Vampires get their energy from their victims, there's no additional draining going on. That would mean they use the rules from LM where feeding isn't optional though.
* Incorporeal undead use less energy, maybe as little as 1/10th.
* Mummies, and possibly other 'guardian' undead, can enter a hibernation state where they only use incorporeal-undead levels of energy, but can't take any action until something wakes them up.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-03, 03:33 PM

Mordar

2017-04-03, 03:35 PM

Makes it hard to actually discuss the matter here, if there's no actual answer beyond "it depends".

Not if you accept that the parameter scales to match the campaign world's Bad-Stuff-O-Meter.

The answer is "it depends" but in the context of "...it (the specific act(s)) depends on the nature of the campaign, but it is always a horrible act of evil". Wanting greater specificity from the general rule system simply opens up a can of unnecessary worms (designer/publisher being accused of corrupting young minds, players/commenters wanting to show off how jaded they are by dismissing the "badness' of the act(s), encouraging EVILZ RULEZ types, etc).

Could greater detail help specific campaigns with questions of redemption/atonement? Maybe, but that's a hyper-specific instance and speaking to that level of detail across all the rules concerning alignments, "monster" creation (or even specifically "undead creation"), detection abilities and spells and so forth would render the rule set far too unwieldy.

- M

Segev

2017-04-03, 07:25 PM

Personally, I'd rather know what the act is, and consider its moral implications for myself, rather than be told "trust us, it's big-E Evil, mkay?".

Ask your GM - that's the point.
Exactly. The act can be specific, in your campaign. But if it seems justiable, you should consider going darker.

Makes it hard to actually discuss the matter here, if there's no actual answer beyond "it depends".
Discussing it is not hard, just potentially uncomfortable. It just doesn't lend itself to hypotheticals where it is a moral quandary that "might be okay." It is #defined to be Not Okay.

Heck, in a multiverse with evil and good as literal cosmic energies, the specific evil act could be different for each lich. It could require energy literally only harnessable with an act of unspeakable evil, so if the act would be rendered justified by circumstances, it automatically makes it insufficient to generate the magical power and effect required to make a phylactery.

To borrow the Harry Potter explanation, if it isn't heinous enough of a murder, it doesn't fracture your soul in the required way. Or whatever the way it works in your campaign.

I agree, and I don't shy away from this fact at all. Murder is evil, murdering your children in order to gain immortality is probably more evil than that. What I'm interested in is the question of "Does committing this evil act, when weighed against decades of good deeds beforehand and centuries of good deeds after, still make the person Evil?" I think you can make an argument that while the act is undeniably Evil, the person might not be completely evil themselves but have convinced (or, if you prefer, deluded) themselves into thinking this one Evil decision was the only way to achieve the Good end they sought.

It's like the classic question of "Would you murder a baby if you knew that baby would grow up to be Hitler?" Murdering a baby is undeniably an Evil thing to do, but if potentially doing so could keep Hitler from committing genocide later in life...well, the question becomes murkier on whether or not you are still a "good" person for having killed that baby. That's what I'm trying to explore here in terms of lich-dom and who chooses to undergo it (without straying too far into "morally justified" territory, of course).
The baby who would be Hitler should be given influences in his upbringing to ensure he doesn't.

The idea, to me, is that however good your end is, the act is at least evil enough to irredeemably taint it. From a good-aligned moral standpoint, it is sufficiently evil to be Not Worth It.

Psyren

2017-04-03, 08:22 PM

Makes it hard to actually discuss the matter here, if there's no actual answer beyond "it depends".

Why is it hard to discuss? You can come up with any atrocity your mind can conjure. We've got some pretty creative folks around here that specialize in that sort of thing if you find yourself at a loss.

The important thing is what Segev said - whatever you come up with needs to be beyond the pale, quite literally.

(Rather, I generally find that the folks who insist on it being defined at the rules level are looking to game the system more than anything else.)

Destro_Yersul

2017-04-03, 08:26 PM

awa

2017-04-03, 08:52 PM

I had a minor villain in a game who was "unspeakably evil" (short version deliberate brain damage in a specific way) npc’s tried but couldn’t really put into words how horrible it was they could talk about vaguely the kind of damage and the timing of the act but it’s like the difference between reading about a sunrise and seeing it they just weren’t the same.

The thing was anyone able to perceive him in the act (he messed with people perception of time) would become more evil just from seeing it, because any lesser evil would seem trivial in comparison.

Part of what made being told it was unspeakable work was that it was a psychotic villain who said it was unspeakable not a good person.
edit
more generally
a lot of the more esoteric evil is vague just how bad is destroying a soul is it just murder + or is it some cosmically incalculably evil thing that far exceeds what our words can justify.

looking at it another way people often hate doloras umbrage more than Voldemort even those hes more evil becuase being a petty tyrant is something we can conceive and feel far more than a mass murder.

That also part of the thing just saying rape or murder is typically not going to get the same response as a graphic description and even that pales in comparison to the real thing. its easy to justify evil when its just words and faceless or even fictional individuals.

well that kinda got rambling their, sorry about that I had a point when I started I swear

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-03, 09:47 PM

Why is it hard to discuss? You can come up with any atrocity your mind can conjure. We've got some pretty creative folks around here that specialize in that sort of thing if you find yourself at a loss.

And they'll all come up with something different.

We can't even be sure that we're discussing the same thing, because we don't have any detail. We just have these vague undefined variables, these open-ended "metafacts" that don't tell us anything or mean anything. We don't know what's actually involved in the lich transformation and maintenance, we don't know anything other than "it's really bad bad stuff, mkay?" We don't know what the paladin's oath is or what sort of paladins we're talking about.

The important thing is what Segev said - whatever you come up with needs to be beyond the pale, quite literally.

One person's "meh, not that bad" is another person's "beyond the pale" is another person's "not in my gaming, please".

And some people are going to look at absolutes, some will do the "calculus", and others will look at "relative to what?" and "what's the alternative?" and "was it the least-bad option?"

Keltest

2017-04-03, 09:51 PM

And they'll all come up with something different.

We can't even be sure that we're discussing the same thing, because we don't have any detail. We just have these vague undefined variables, these open-ended "metafacts" that don't tell us anything or mean anything. We don't know what's actually involved in the lich transformation and maintenance, we don't know anything other than "it's really bad bad stuff, mkay?" We don't know what the paladin's oath is or what sort of paladins we're talking about.

One person's "meh, not that bad" is another person's "beyond the pale" is another person's "not in my gaming, please".

And some people are going to look at absolutes, some will do the "calculus", and others will look at "relative to what?" and "what's the alternative?" and "was it the least-bad option?"

In what way is the specific relevant? somewhat ironically, a nonspecified "unspeakable evil" is a much better standardized baseline than a specific act because it is in many ways a more consistent moral flaw.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-03, 09:54 PM

In what way is the specific relevant? somewhat ironically, a nonspecified "unspeakable evil" is a much better standardized baseline than a specific act because it is in many ways a more consistent moral flaw.

I just really dislike this "metafact" approach. It just smells too much of "revealed truth" and "it's bad because we said it's bad".

Keltest

2017-04-03, 09:59 PM

I just really dislike this "metafact" approach. It just smells too much of "revealed truth" and "it's bad because we said it's bad".

Ok, but how does that make it harder to talk about? We don't need to know the specific details, because the actual details of the evil are irrelevant.

Thajocoth

2017-04-03, 10:01 PM

The lich would have to be resisting his natural instincts... Which is a completely plausible thing. Good people don't particularly want to die either, but when they take the dark and drastic measures to become something that's less human, their instincts shift to match their new form.

A person can have a VERY strong desire to kill and never act on it because they choose their actions. It's harder, and increases their stress to go against themselves so much, but it's something that's very common in the real world. Similarly, a character with the focus not to be evil can undergo the transformation into something horrible but resist their new instincts, keeping to a neutral or even good alignment if they're particularly strong willed.

I would say to give this character a high Will stat. Perhaps even have the ritual thrust upon them long ago during a kidnapping (possibly with a domination effect at the time), rather than being their own choice. Perhaps this king is so strong willed in part to not allow their assailants to have effected their policies as king, as a form of pure stubbornness. With no heirs, and no longer a way to produce any, he's continued running his kingdom for centuries, but has a very strong sense of duty to his fleshier subjects.

It's not the norm, but if you write it well, it could really work!

As for the paladin, he'll be a bit confused, but if he's good at his job, he won't attack someone who's not actually evil.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-03, 10:06 PM

Ok, but how does that make it harder to talk about? We don't need to know the specific details, because the actual details of the evil are irrelevant.

It's like saying "let's talk about the Roman Empire... but we can't go into any detail at all about war, slavery, misogyny, religious tension, Imperial intrigue, or the schizophrenic relationship with the "barbarians"".

Keltest

2017-04-03, 10:25 PM

It's like saying "let's talk about the Roman Empire... but we can't go into any detail at all about war, slavery, misogyny, religious tension, Imperial intrigue, or the schizophrenic relationship with the "barbarians"".

not really. If youre having a discussion about the relationship Rome had with its neighbors, you don't need to know the details of every war Rome had to know they went to war a lot and understand how that would affect their relationships.

Segev

2017-04-03, 11:15 PM

And they'll all come up with something different. Indeed, they will.

One person's "meh, not that bad" is another person's "beyond the pale" is another person's "not in my gaming, please".

And some people are going to look at absolutes, some will do the "calculus", and others will look at "relative to what?" and "what's the alternative?" and "was it the least-bad option?"That's the point. Because one person's "meh, not that bad" is another person's "beyond the pale," and that is others' "not in my gaming, please," we want to avoid a specific rule about what it is. It would be one person's "meh, that's hardly evil," and lead to heated debates over whether and how it could be justified, rather than dealing with the "unspeakable evil" that is supposed to be a requirement of lichdom. It would be just right for those who find it "beyond the pale," but for those who have it as "not in my gaming, please," it will potentially make the whole game a non-starter for them. It would fuel the fires of "D&D is satan worship" and other stupidity like that because it would give those who seek it "proof."

By leaving it up to each individual table to decide just what it is, or as a thing to hand-wave as "just seriously bad, okay? If he did it, he's done something EVIL no matter how you try to justify it," it can be used at any table who wants to without diluting it nor making it ... well, too squicky to use.

We can't even be sure that we're discussing the same thing, because we don't have any detail. We just have these vague undefined variables, these open-ended "metafacts" that don't tell us anything or mean anything. We don't know what's actually involved in the lich transformation and maintenance, we don't know anything other than "it's really bad bad stuff, mkay?" We don't know what the paladin's oath is or what sort of paladins we're talking about.I don't see the logical connection to this conclusion. Mainly because I don't see how the assumption that we need "detail" to be sure we're talking about the same thing is valid, let alone how it connects to whether or not we're discussing just how evil a lich's actions had to be.

We have the important detail: Whatever it is, it's EVIL. No question, no justification, no mitigation. It's so horrifically evil that all at your table would agree it taints and subverts any "good" that might have come from his lichdom.

What the specific details are is quite the open subject, but we have the important criterion: if, for your group, an idea is justifiable in any way, and a great enough good can make it "worth it," that idea probably isn't the right one for the lich's "unspeakably evil" act. Discussing what kinds of acts might qualify is perfectly valid! And can be quite interesting, though may take a strong stomach depending on the creativity of some of those involved in the discussion.

We've already had some such discussion, with people commenting that something ongoing may be NECESSARY to create such genuine evil. After all, if one has an eternity to do good, how could one act stain all of that? We've also had examples of the kinds of acts one might do (murdering your own children has come up), with people chiming in as to why they find that insufficiently evil.

I contend that a lich tainting things by his existence doesn't qualify mainly because it ceases then to be a factor of his creation of the phylactery, and more a factor of his continued being.

But what if the act required the destruction of all hope for potential of a certain great good? Perhaps it consumes the potential lives of a family line, race, or species. Perhaps it cuts off through murder something that would have been a great force for good. Perhaps it so ruins a person or thing that it now creates harm when it could have created weal for many.

What if the act requires a great act of divination to even perform successfully: you must find the as-yet unrealized youths, children, babies, or parents of as-yet unborn such...who will one day become a party with a great destiny for good, and ritually sacrifice them all so that you can consume their destiny. Each time a depravity goes unthwarted, each time an evil grows unabated, and each time innocents suffer where they would not have thanks to the actions of that party, the lich's phylactery draws power to hold the lich's life force to the mortal plane. As one example of a potential evil act.

You could, again, even gauge it such that the divinations also rely on a hint of how much good the lich has the potential to do with his eternal existence, and thus require the sacrifices to be of a group who would have exceeded that good, through direct or indirect consequence-trees.

Tiktakkat

2017-04-03, 11:57 PM

I think I stated that I had given them consideration. I get your skepticism about the fact that a person who has ruled for 72 years wouldn't have any grandchildren or other family, but frankly there are plenty of people in the real world who live to old age and don't have any children or grandchildren. It might not be the "common" thing, but it's not so rare as to be implausible.

Except you set him up as some great benevolent ruler, who united everyone.
But that isn't the problem. You deliberately gave him children and then . . . those children are spontaneously cut off because it doesn't fit the neat scenario. And beyond that, this wonderful ruler has no lieutenants or advisors who are suitable.
That is rather implausible - unless you take specific steps to set it all up. You didn't, so we are left with half a story, and a ruler filled with his own self-importance.

You are free to feel that explanation is contrived, but it is the explanation I came up with for the purposes of exploring whether a person can or cannot be fundamentally "good" while still deciding to become a lich.

It is self-contradictory:
Either it is so Evil as to qualify for the lich process;
Or it is not so Evil as to disqualify the wizard-king from being Evil.
You have to pick one.

I'm attempting no such thing. I think I've been pretty clear in presenting such viewpoints from the Wizard-King's perspective, but as far as my own views are concerned I even mentioned that I leaned more towards your opinion that the character is likely acting out of hubris and unwilling to admit it. I simply wrote a story to play devil's advocate because I find the question interesting and would like to explore the possibilities.

That's not how the alignment system works.
It is irrelevant how the character feels about himself, it is how the "multiverse" judges his action.

Ok, now you're getting oddly aggressive. I never likened anything to sparkly vampires, for one, and while I agree the thread didn't begin with that question it's nonetheless relevant to the discussion at hand. If you find it to be a distraction, that's your right, but then why are you engaging in said discussion if that's how you feel?

I never said you did.
I said the endless circular musing was the path to sparky vampires, and it is. It is taking monsters, applying layer after layer of self-justifications until they turn in anti-heroes, more layers of angst until they become protagonists, and finally veneers of Mary Suing until they are the heroes.
I am engaging in the discussion because I dislike that trend in the genre and hobby, and want to advocate against it. Or don't I have that right?

That is certainly your opinion, and I thank you sincerely for sharing it. Feedback like this helps me grow as a writer, so I appreciate it.

Yes, it is my opinion.
One based on years of reading Golden Age and modern horror, as well as TSR/WotC horror.

I never said anything of the sort. I agree with the overall point you are making that "Evil" doesn't require you to be "Evil" 100% of the time. As for whether or not benevolent acts "balance" evil ones--that's kind of the point of contention, and again I'm inclined to agree with you but also want to explore the other side of the argument.

Then you need to alter the definitions first. Which leads into:

That's certainly one conclusion you can draw. As I said before, the process of becoming a lich is inherently Evil--there's no way to get around that fact (using standard D&D liches). So it sounds like your position (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that "Anyone who chooses to become a lich, whatever their justification(s), is Evil." I can get behind that argument, myself, but I also think you can make a strong argument that is not the case. Maybe I haven't done a good job of it with my story, but I still think someone out there can make such an argument (it'd be an uphill battle, as I said before, but I think it can be done).

That is my position.
More importantly though, that is your position. You are saying the process is inherently evil with no way around it. It doesn't matter what I say at that point, you have established the baseline for your story.
And then you immediately break a rule of your milieu.
It isn't whether it cannot be done, it is that it cannot be done the way you are trying to do it.

If you want to write a story in which the process of becoming a lich is not inherently evil, and there are ways around it, as part of the rules of the milieu, and then explore those exceptions, then you have a foundation for your story as a tool to explore alternate structures.
I may not like it aesthetically, be it the aesthetics of the art or rules, but that is aesthetics.
That is different from a core structural flaw of contradicting your own rules.

I've never played/read about the Ravenloft setting, so I can't really comment on this part except to say that pretty much all characters can fall into one trope or another. There's almost nothing new under the sun.

There are good ways and bad ways to do tropes.
Indeed, there are good ways and bad ways to invert and lampshade tropes.
The Ravenloft material ultimately missed the point of the genre completely, and just went for the uber and the kewlz, completely losing the essence in the process.

See, if I were to argue against the point you seem to be making to me, I'd say that the lich is NOT justified in his actions because murder is still murder and whatever horrible acts were visited upon him still do not justify his own horrible actions in turn. The lich is a free-willed individual who is in complete control of how he reacts to the world around him--the fact that he chooses to "fight fire with fire" doesn't justify his actions, it just means he's not shy about admitting he's comfortable being an arsonist, himself.

"Justified" makes him Lawful, it doesn't stop him from being Evil.
Indeed, he could have chosen to avoid undeath and such in fighting back.
He didn't.
That he also chose to stop before exterminating everyone in his kingdom out vengeance when they expelled him doesn't exculpate him for his previous offenses and make him Good.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-04, 12:40 AM

We've already had some such discussion, with people commenting that something ongoing may be NECESSARY to create such genuine evil. After all, if one has an eternity to do good, how could one act stain all of that? We've also had examples of the kinds of acts one might do (murdering your own children has come up), with people chiming in as to why they find that insufficiently evil.

I contend that a lich tainting things by his existence doesn't qualify mainly because it ceases then to be a factor of his creation of the phylactery, and more a factor of his continued being.

But what if the act required the destruction of all hope for potential of a certain great good? Perhaps it consumes the potential lives of a family line, race, or species. Perhaps it cuts off through murder something that would have been a great force for good. Perhaps it so ruins a person or thing that it now creates harm when it could have created weal for many.

What if the act requires a great act of divination to even perform successfully: you must find the as-yet unrealized youths, children, babies, or parents of as-yet unborn such...who will one day become a party with a great destiny for good, and ritually sacrifice them all so that you can consume their destiny. Each time a depravity goes unthwarted, each time an evil grows unabated, and each time innocents suffer where they would not have thanks to the actions of that party, the lich's phylactery draws power to hold the lich's life force to the mortal plane. As one example of a potential evil act.

You could, again, even gauge it such that the divinations also rely on a hint of how much good the lich has the potential to do with his eternal existence, and thus require the sacrifices to be of a group who would have exceeded that good, through direct or indirect consequence-trees.

And this is getting into another reason why I don't like it. It's thematic, not factual. It's not "here's what the would-be lich must do, is it evil?", it's "what the would-be lich has to do MUST be evil, so no matter how far you have to imagine for it to be evil, that's what it is". It's a bottomless rabbit-hole, and evil just because it must be evil on this side of the 4th wall.

IMO, the only way this works is if it's the in-setting truth of the matter -- that the would-be lich has to do something that he/she considers too evil to be redeemed from, too awful to contemplate, to vile to even consider. Whatever ancient arch-necromancer or evil trickster god cursed humanity with the ritual purposefully made it that way, intentionally.

Milo v3

2017-04-04, 02:15 AM

And this is getting into another reason why I don't like it. It's thematic, not factual.
It is factual considering that evil is a literal thing with a degree of sentience in D&D. Evil decides if is your acts evil enough, since there are potentially hundreds of different evil things one could do.

Drascin

2017-04-04, 03:53 AM

This thread reminds me of Lord Balthazar the Undying.

Lord Balthazar is a concept I came up with, but have never had the opportunity to use. He's the undead ruler of a small kingdom and is, by all accounts of the people who live there, a perfectly reasonable and good ruler. But all of the surrounding kingdoms hate and fear him, because of the whole undead monster thing. So anywhere else, you get tons of propaganda about how horrible and despotic he is, and how unjust his rule is, but if you ever actually go there everything is great.

You know, the most unrealistic part of this strikes me not as the fact that an undead lord is rulling well and fairly, because I have no problem with that, but the fact that the people under a reasonable ruler would actually say he's a reasonable ruler instead of complaining about taxes and such :smalltongue:.

Knaight

2017-04-04, 04:02 AM

eru001

2017-04-04, 07:10 AM

For the "Good Lich"

Can one exist?

Since my other story seemed well recieved, perhaps you all will indulge me once more.

This is the story of Hochmeister Karl the Lich. (Yes I am good at naming characters thank you for noticing:smallwink:)

Sir Karl was the greatest of the Knights of the Kingdom of Niceland. In his younger days he traveled the globe at the head of an adventuring party, righting wrongs and seeking out evils to thwart. He did so very successfully. As he grew into his middle age, he settled down. He built a manor house on the lands the king rewarded his service with, met a nice girl, got married, had three great kids. He still adventured every now and then with his old buddies, whenever a suitably large evil showed up and needed fighting, but his day to day role now was more advisory, training younger knights, helping the King to maintain the Kingdom etc, commanding troops in times of war, etc. Sir Karl even into his later years is renowned for his fairness, chivalry, and successes both in battle and on the tourney field. He is certainly not a perfect man. He has made many mistakes throughout his life, but the thing which makes a man Good, is not that he never do wrong, but that he never stop trying to do Good. By this meteric, Karl registers as good whenever a Paladin swings a detect evil his way. Karl does his best to do right by the people in his care, even convincing the King to transition Niceland into a constitutional monarchy and establish a parliament. He also gathers up many of the old relics of his adventuring days and ensures that they are placed under a proper guard by the kingdom, to ensure that no evildoers or well meaning idiots can access the dark evils contained within the trophies he has taken from the evil foes he's felled.

Then the evil horde comes with the dark lord Yugdab at it's head. It smashes into the western border of the kingdom bent on the rape/pilliage/burn of everything and everyone it can reach. Sir Karl leads the army against it but after several engagements it is clear that victory against such a horde is not within his power, or that of the kingdom. Yugdab is too mighty, his evil horde too large. Sir Karl even attempted to engage Yugdab in single combat, but even he, likely the highest level warrior in the kingdom, not only could not win, but barely escaped with his life due to a siege engine crew intervening in the form of a well placed ballistae bolt. Suffice to say the kingdom is outmatched, and to make matters worse, it's allies can't help. The Dwarves are buisy digging too deep, and the Elves are haughty jerks who told the kingdom's ambassador that "this sounds like a you problem not an us problem" no aid is coming.

In desperation, the king calls an emergency session of parliament. A proposal is put forwards, it passes. The relics of past evils, defeated by Karl are to be examined by the greatest scholars of the kingdom. Perhaps their, admittedly dark powers can be turned towards saving the land, and preventing the horrific atrocities which will be inflicted on it by Yugdab and his horde. A solution is found. An individual, ideally one of great strength, can be granted great power to suppliment their own, but the process is, wrong. Very wrong. Things have to be done, sacrifices made. Parliament Votes. The King issues an order. Karl, reluctantly agrees. The kingdom's mages set to work. It is done. Sir Karl, is now a Lich.

Using the powers granted by being a Lich, as well as his own might, Karl is able to emerge victorious over Yugdab. The crisis is over. But what is to be done with Karl? The King likes Karl. Karl has served him faithfully all his life. The people like Karl, he has defended them from evil all his life. Now Karl is a lich, and has continued to defend them. Should they kill him? He returned victorious and offered them the chance, Karl seemed to think it was correct to do. But they just can't bring themselves to murder their hero, however skeletal he might be at the moment.

After much debate, Karl returns to his old duties as head of the order of Knnights in service to the Kingdom. For the comfort of others, one of the King's illusionists casts an illusion on him that makes him appear, at least to a visual inspection, as a living man. Karl continues to serve the kingdom. He now has urges as a result of his condition, urges to do wrong, to cause harm, but he is a willfull man. He keeps them in check, only letting himself loose when in battle. Perhaps he leads from the front a bit more. Perhaps he enjoys planting his greatsword in the chests of evildoers a bit too much. Perhaps he now somewhat draws out his fights against his opponents rather than going for quick and efficient takedowns. He still takes them down. He still smites the evil. He just enjoys it more. Perhaps he enjoys it a bit too much, but hey, the Knightly code says to fight evil, it does not say don't enjoy fighting evil.

The king eventually dies of old age. His son takes over. Karl continues to serve that new King. Eventually that king too dies and his son takes over. Karl continues to serve, the undying protector. The right hand to the king. Service Eternal to the King and People. That is what he does now. He has his demons. He has his struggles. And he faces them as best he can. Usually he succeeds in keeping his "nature" in check. Sometimes he fails, but as he is responsible, there are systems put in place, by both Karl and the King, to ensure that whatever damage done in these failures is repaired, those wounded are healed and compensated, and the rare few who die are raised and heavilly compensated. Karl can afford to pay for these damages, one does not spend multiple lifetimes as a high level adventurer without making a a small fortune, a slain dragon or two provides quite the nest egg. (pun very much intended).

Eventually, a king rolls around who produces no heir, and there is a dispute over which noble house should become the new royal house. Parliament settles the matter by choosing to confer power upon Karl. He is the logical choice. He has faithfully served the Kingdom and its people for hundreds of years at this point. He hasn't been perfect, but overall has been a strong net positive from the kingdom's perspective. Also the whole succession crisis issue would be avoided for the forseeable future. Karl, and the order of knights he leads, are now the legitimate executive authority of the land, he refuses the title of king, instead choosing to continue under the title Hochmeister, as he commands a knightly order. This goes fairly well overall. Karl didn't live for centuries and learn nothing about governing. There are some changes. The Kingdom of Niceland is now the Ordenstat von Nicelandt, but as far as the average citizen is concerned, little has changed, and life is still mostly good.

Hochmiester Karl von Nicelandt. Has a nice ring to it. Perhaps as his armies are led from the front a bit often, and perhaps they go crusading against evils a bit more often than is entirely necessary, and are truly ruthless in battle. But hey, they fight the bad guys, it's ok to enjoy hitting bad guys with swords. As one of my favorite paladins once approved of, "It's like taking apocalypse candy from a hellbaby".

Karl, the Good Lich ruler.

The Aboleth

2017-04-04, 11:28 AM

Except you set him up as some great benevolent ruler, who united everyone.
But that isn't the problem. You deliberately gave him children and then . . . those children are spontaneously cut off because it doesn't fit the neat scenario.

I don't understand the connection you're trying to make here. Are you saying that because I set him up to be a benevolent ruler who has united the kingdom that he MUST have children? If so, one is not required for the other. Plenty of people choose not to have children for a multitude of reasons. The Wizard-King had two, but those two chose not to have children of their (or, if we assume the first did have children as a result of his playboy ways, then he either did not know of them or he did but chose not to view them as his children and put forth no effort into raising them). It happens, repeatedly, in both fantasy and real life.

As far as the notion that I "spontaneously cut them off because it doesn't fit the scenario," I have said repeatedly that the reason I included their deaths as being necessary for the lich-making ritual is because it lent more emotional weight to the decision and because killing your children is probably MORE evil then killing some random person. You are right that I made a narrative decision to require they be murdered as part of the lich process. You seem to be upset that I presented no scenario that allowed for the Wizard-King to become a lich AND have the sons live. That's kind of the point! It's supposed to be upsetting, and it's supposed to make you question whether the Wizard-King is doing it "for the greater good" or not. You fall on the side of "or not." That is a fair position; I also think someone can make an argument for the former position, though.

And beyond that, this wonderful ruler has no lieutenants or advisors who are suitable. That is rather implausible - unless you take specific steps to set it all up. You didn't, so we are left with half a story, and a ruler filled with his own self-importance.

Again, there are plenty of example throughout history where the removal of a singular leader has led to rampant war, famine, chaos, and other suffering. I won't name the examples I had in mind because it likely violates the forum's rules, but if you are interested in them feel free to PM me.

It is self-contradictory:
Either it is so Evil as to qualify for the lich process;
Or it is not so Evil as to disqualify the wizard-king from being Evil.
You have to pick one.

No, I don't have to pick just one. There is a third option, and that option is this: Good people make bad--even evil--decisions all the time, and this does not necessarily make them Evil. "The road to Hell was paved with good intentions," as they say. When people are in a desperate situation, they will often resort to desperate measures. This is how I tried to write the Wizard-King--as a man who, up to that point, has been Good but who feels desperate enough to make commit a very Evil act in order to ensure the safety of millions of citizens.

Again, you can feel that making such a decision makes him Evil, and that there is no amount of Good actions afterward that can erase the "taint" of his Evilness. That is a legitimate position. Personally, though, I feel that sometimes Good people can do horrible things, and am interested in whether or not this means they were ever Good in the first place. I can still think "killing your children," no matter the reasons, is going too far while ALSO acknowledging that there are perhaps some who do not feel that way and exploring that line of reasoning. It's not a contradiction, it's an analysis of an opposing viewpoint.

That's not how the alignment system works.
It is irrelevant how the character feels about himself, it is how the "multiverse" judges his action.

You seem to view the alignment system as immovably rigid. For myself, I view the alignment system as more flexible. There are certainly actions that are "Good" or "Evil" no matter how you look at them, but there are also many things in between that require a certain amount of nuance and discussion to figure out where they fall on the spectrum. You're free to view the alignment system your way, just as I'm free to view it in mine.

I never said you did.
I said the endless circular musing was the path to sparky vampires, and it is. It is taking monsters, applying layer after layer of self-justifications until they turn in anti-heroes, more layers of angst until they become protagonists, and finally veneers of Mary Suing until they are the heroes.
I am engaging in the discussion because I dislike that trend in the genre and hobby, and want to advocate against it. Or don't I have that right?

So you would prefer all Evil characters to be one-dimensional mustache-twirling schemers of ill intent? Evil characters can have thoughts, emotions, and reasons for doing what they do that go beyond "I'm evil/power hungry/whatever." This does not make them Mary Sues or sparkly vampires. What makes such examples Mary Sues or sparkly vampires is bad writing.

Yes, it is my opinion.
One based on years of reading Golden Age and modern horror, as well as TSR/WotC horror.

Fair enough.

That is my position.
More importantly though, that is your position. You are saying the process is inherently evil with no way around it. It doesn't matter what I say at that point, you have established the baseline for your story.
And then you immediately break a rule of your milieu.
It isn't whether it cannot be done, it is that it cannot be done the way you are trying to do it.

Again, good people make bad decisions all the time. Does that make them bad people? Maybe, it depends on the circumstances surrounding that one decision and whether they continue to make bad decisions in the future. People make mistakes, or make decisions with faulty or incomplete information, or any number of other things that force them to forgo the standard conventions of morality "for the greater good." Now, at a certain point it stops being "You made a bad decision that goes against your normal character" and turns into "This is your normal character, and perhaps always was." Where is that tipping point? Is it when someone chooses to steal to feed themselves? Is it when someone decides to murder their children to continue ruling a kingdom to ensure (in their mind) that doing so will save millions of people from chaos and bloodshed? Is it somewhere in-between? This is what I'm trying to explore. If you think I went too far and there is no justification for the Wizard-King's actions, that is your opinion (and the opinion of some others, as well). I don't see how I "broke a rule of your milieu," though.

If you want to write a story in which the process of becoming a lich is not inherently evil, and there are ways around it, as part of the rules of the milieu, and then explore those exceptions, then you have a foundation for your story as a tool to explore alternate structures.

I didn't want to write that story, though. I wanted to write a story that acknowledges that the process of becoming a lich is evil and exploring whether a good person could willingly choose to undergo that process and and still be considered a good person. I had no interest in writing a story that made the lich process anything but undeniably evil, because that would have undermined the possibility I was attempting to explore.

I may not like it aesthetically, be it the aesthetics of the art or rules, but that is aesthetics.
That is different from a core structural flaw of contradicting your own rules.

Again, I don't see how I contradicted my own rules. I wrote a character who was perceived--by both himself and his kindgom--to be Good, then made him take an action that was unquestionably Evil for reasons I feel I plainly laid out, and then asked the question "Is this person still Good?" Some people, like yourself, may say "No, they are not still Good." Others might say, "No, they are Neutral, because they undertook an Evil actions with Good intentions that ultimately had Good outcomes for millions of people." Others still might say "Yes, they are still Good because the net result of millions of people being saved from a bad situation outweighs the Evil act." Others might even say, "No, this person is Evil right now but can, if enough Good comes of it over the centuries, drift back to Neutral or maybe even Good, but it'd be a huge uphill battle to get there." Point is, there are multiple different possibilities that might exists, and I wrote a story with the intent on exploring them.

There are good ways and bad ways to do tropes.
Indeed, there are good ways and bad ways to invert and lampshade tropes.
The Ravenloft material ultimately missed the point of the genre completely, and just went for the uber and the kewlz, completely losing the essence in the process.

Agreed. It sounds like the Ravenloft material was doomed by poor writing, though again I haven't read it myself so I can't say for certain.

"Justified" makes him Lawful, it doesn't stop him from being Evil.
Indeed, he could have chosen to avoid undeath and such in fighting back.
He didn't.
That he also chose to stop before exterminating everyone in his kingdom out vengeance when they expelled him doesn't exculpate him for his previous offenses and make him Good.

Again, I could argue his actions were NOT justified and thus do NOT make him Lawful. Just because other people did monstrous things to you doesn't mean you have to become a monster yourself. You seem to be excusing your character's "justifications" while hammering my own character's, then saying "But my character never claimed to be Good!" as a point in your favor. In reality, you are just arguing a different point then I am: You are saying that "Characters who make Evil decisions must ALWAYS be Evil," while I am saying "The possibility exists that Good characters can, at times, make Evil decisions and still not be considered Evil." Even if I, personally, don't think the Wizard-King falls into the latter scenario, I can still examine the Wizard-King from that perspective as a means of exploring it.

The baby who would be Hitler should be given influences in his upbringing to ensure he doesn't.

The idea, to me, is that however good your end is, the act is at least evil enough to irredeemably taint it. From a good-aligned moral standpoint, it is sufficiently evil to be Not Worth It.

Well, yeah, obviously raising the baby to not become Hitler is what you SHOULD do, but the question is used in philosophy to discuss exactly the sorts of things I highlight above. Suppose there was no other way to keep baby Hitler from becoming Hitler: Would you then make the decision to kill that baby? If so, does this make you a good or a bad person?

ImNotTrevor

2017-04-04, 11:32 AM

eru001

2017-04-04, 11:59 AM

The Aboleth

2017-04-04, 02:21 PM

For the "Good Lich"

This is the story of Hochmeister Karl the Lich. (Yes I am good at naming characters thank you for noticing:smallwink:)

.....

Then the evil horde comes with the dark lord Yugdab at it's head.

I literally laughed out loud at the dark lord's name. Well done! :smallamused:

EDIT: As far as the point of "Can enough Y balance out enough X or vice versa?" I think that we're seeing that play out with V in the comic. V has committed a truly horrible act, but I think it's still up for debate on whether or not V is currently Evil. If V is currently Evil due to the horrible act, then can V do enough to bring him/herself back to True Neutral? It's an interesting question, to be sure.

ImNotTrevor

2017-04-04, 03:01 PM

I think the question then becomes, if in Dnd there are acts that are X evil, where X is the quantity of evil required to be 100% irredemable. Do their opposites exist?

Does an act exist which is Y quanity of good where Y is the quanity of good required to be 100% irrevocably good now?

If so, What happens if a character does both things?

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN UNSTOPPABLE FORCE HITS AN IMMOVABLE OBJECT DANGIT!

I would think that the idea behind such action existing is that they are so polarizing that once you've done one, you won't do, or perhaps would be forever incapable of doing, the other.

For instance, if the act of Goodness requires giving up your immortal Soul for the sake of another, then you cannot do it and then become a Lich. If you've become a Lich, no amount of self-sacrifice, even of your Soul, will do anything now that it is tainted beyond salvation.

Whatever such acts are, they are likely mutually exclusive. You are probably literally incapable of doing both for plain logistical reasons.

Xanyo

2017-04-04, 03:06 PM

The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character.
Becoming a lich is an evil act. Additionally, if the lich seems to be ruling fairly, there's an 80% chance he's doing something evil that the public is unaware of.

Psyren

2017-04-04, 03:38 PM

And they'll all come up with something different.

Yes! Humanity is diverse! Isn't it great?

One person's "meh, not that bad" is another person's "beyond the pale" is another person's "not in my gaming, please".

Exactly - only one of those people will be your GM at any given time.

NichG

2017-04-04, 09:36 PM

This is why its important to separate metagame considerations from moral/ethical/practical/etc in-character considerations.

The characters in the world don't have to care whether or not their behavior patterns make it easier or harder for the players and GM to buy into the desired thematics. That is to say, choosing to ignore informed attributes as handed down by the GM is a perfectly valid thing to do in-character. The GM can say 'at this table, kicking a puppy is unforgivably evil' and then a player is still free to go and consider a puppy-kicker forgiven. Similarly, the GM may say 'but, to become a lich you have to do something unspeakably evil' and players are free to say 'well, I have no actual reason to care since I haven't judged this unspeakably evil thing for myself'. If the GM says 'imagine the worst thing possible, that you could never forgive; he did that' the player can still say 'okay, imagined. I forgive him anyways.'

Meta-facts as a method for exploratory framing are one thing. Meta-facts as a way to compel agreement, behavior, or as a mode of proof or demonstration in argument are quite another thing. 'Imagine the argument that would convince you that you're wrong and pretend I just said it' isn't really a valid form of argumentation, and that's what it reads like when they're used to argue a point crossing in-character and out-of-character considerations.

Tiktakkat

2017-04-04, 09:45 PM

I don't understand the connection you're trying to make here. Are you saying that because I set him up to be a benevolent ruler who has united the kingdom that he MUST have children?

You needed two children for your evil act. More would clearly get in the way of the simplified scenario, as would any quality advisors. As a narrative choice, that comes off a bit contrived.

Again, there are plenty of example throughout history where the removal of a singular leader has led to rampant war, famine, chaos, and other suffering. I won't name the examples I had in mind because it likely violates the forum's rules, but if you are interested in them feel free to PM me.

You don't have to, I know a hoard myself. As well as a hoard of patricide and fratricide inspired civil wars.
However, you have the wizard-king assuming that as an absolute and automatic outcome.
This is where it conflicts with excluding any other children:
The wizard-king "knew" he needed an heir for 72 years, he knew his two direct children were unsuitable, and . . . he did nothing all that time to arrange for another heir? No "forced" arranged marriages? No adopted advisor? Nothing?
That's really working against him being a particularly qualified ruler in the first place if you are using that structure.

No, I don't have to pick just one. There is a third option, and that option is this: Good people make bad--even evil--decisions all the time, and this does not necessarily make them Evil. "The road to Hell was paved with good intentions," as they say. When people are in a desperate situation, they will often resort to desperate measures. This is how I tried to write the Wizard-King--as a man who, up to that point, has been Good but who feels desperate enough to make commit a very Evil act in order to ensure the safety of millions of citizens.

Well . . . yeah. You do. That's the whole point of that saying that you quote - all the Good intentions do not change what you are from being Evil when you make a choice like that.
And note, that is your choice for a saying to refer to, not mine.
Your narrative goal is not fitting your declared background assumption.

You seem to view the alignment system as immovably rigid. For myself, I view the alignment system as more flexible. There are certainly actions that are "Good" or "Evil" no matter how you look at them, but there are also many things in between that require a certain amount of nuance and discussion to figure out where they fall on the spectrum. You're free to view the alignment system your way, just as I'm free to view it in mine.

That's precisely how I view the alignment system.
I am pointing out that you have placed certain actions at certain points and then trying to move them from the fixed positions you have assigned them.

So you would prefer all Evil characters to be one-dimensional mustache-twirling schemers of ill intent? Evil characters can have thoughts, emotions, and reasons for doing what they do that go beyond "I'm evil/power hungry/whatever." This does not make them Mary Sues or sparkly vampires. What makes such examples Mary Sues or sparkly vampires is bad writing.

Not at all. Evil characters can have lots of emotions and such.
However, when you use those to try and make them not-Evil, then they become Mary sues and sparkly vampires, as contradicting your own assumptions very much breaks the suspension of disbelief required for immersion into the story, and is the heart of bad writing.

I don't see how I "broke a rule of your milieu," though.

Right here:

I didn't want to write that story, though. I wanted to write a story that acknowledges that the process of becoming a lich is evil and exploring whether a good person could willingly choose to undergo that process and and still be considered a good person. I had no interest in writing a story that made the lich process anything but undeniably evil, because that would have undermined the possibility I was attempting to explore.

Rule: Becoming a lich is evil.
Violation: But this one isn't.

Either your rule is that becoming a lich is Evil or it isn't.
It doesn't matter that a person was Good before making that choice. It matters that he did, and thus cannot be Good.

Now it is possible you are conflating being of Good alignment with "be considered a good person".
Those two are quite distinct, and it is indeed quite possible to be thoroughly Evil and still be considered a good (decent/heroic/noble) person.
That is an artifact of the language used, with "Good" (capitalized) having a specific objective value within the game rules, and "good" (not-capitalized) having an indeterminate subjective value within the game narrative.

Agreed. It sounds like the Ravenloft material was doomed by poor writing, though again I haven't read it myself so I can't say for certain.

That's my view. There are plenty who thoroughly disagree.

Again, I could argue his actions were NOT justified and thus do NOT make him Lawful. Just because other people did monstrous things to you doesn't mean you have to become a monster yourself. You seem to be excusing your character's "justifications" while hammering my own character's, then saying "But my character never claimed to be Good!" as a point in your favor. In reality, you are just arguing a different point then I am: You are saying that "Characters who make Evil decisions must ALWAYS be Evil," while I am saying "The possibility exists that Good characters can, at times, make Evil decisions and still not be considered Evil." Even if I, personally, don't think the Wizard-King falls into the latter scenario, I can still examine the Wizard-King from that perspective as a means of exploring it.

Of course you could.
Because that is the [I]subjective element of his alignment, as opposed to the objective element. (Though there are objective qualities to being Lawful versus Neutral versus Chaotic.)
But that is yet another axis of discussion, and only relates to the actual topic in what I noted in my first response: that a paladin is not obligated to respect a law that permits an Evil undead creature to be the ruler of a nation.

The Aboleth

2017-04-04, 09:49 PM

Meta-facts as a method for exploratory framing are one thing. Meta-facts as a way to compel agreement, behavior, or as a mode of proof or demonstration in argument are quite another thing.

I'm not quite sure I follow you here. What are you considering "exploratory framing" and how does that differ from your second point? (I'm legitimately interested and not trying to be rude at all, so apologies if I came off that way.)

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-04, 10:17 PM

NichG

2017-04-04, 10:18 PM

I'm not quite sure I follow you here. What are you considering "exploratory framing" and how does that differ from your second point? (I'm legitimately interested and not trying to be rude at all, so apologies if I came off that way.)

In the conversation in this thread, one of the recurring points is basically 'is the Lich evil enough to counter-balance the good that they're actively doing?'. This is actually two points that are being intermingled. One point is 'can the Lich have a Good alignment?', the other is 'should moral individuals permit the Lich's reign to continue?'. The former point is in some sense a definitional one - you can say 'the cosmos defines Good and Evil in such a way, and definitionally the Lich ritual prevents one from ever holding a Good alignment again' - which on its own isn't so contentious.

But then the problem is that this is being used to implicitly forward a moral argument, along the lines of - since the Lich is Evil, his continued reign cannot possibly be morally right. In the objection to that transition, there were requests to define just what act the Lich could have taken which would lead to that conclusion. Basically that's a rejection of the premise that Evil equates to morally unacceptable.

So when the meta-fact that the Lich ritual is 'sufficiently evil that X' is brought into play, it has the form of argumentation of 'imagine the counter-argument that would convince you'. E.g. it excludes the possibility that you can reach your own determination which might disagree with the established meta-fact. But that determination is exactly the thing in question in the second line of argument. So this feels like using metagame considerations like 'this is needed for the game to run smoothly' in order to forward an abstract argument about morality.

I think that's basically the misunderstanding between the 'metafact' side of this debate and Max_Killjoy's side. The meta-fact was presented as an argument, (it seems to me that) he felt that there was something fishy about that line and asked for clarification in the form of concretization, and then is told in response 'no, it can't be concretized, you have to accept the abstract position because (practical reasons for running games)'. So that's just going to make the feeling that something fishy is going on worse, leading to a lot of back and forth with both sides not really making headway (it seems).

Which, IMO, amounts to mistaking a pragmatic expository tool for a form of logical argumentation. The GM must use metafacts because of practical considerations, but that's a different situation than people debating a point of contention.

The Aboleth

2017-04-04, 10:53 PM

You needed two children for your evil act. More would clearly get in the way of the simplified scenario, as would any quality advisors. As a narrative choice, that comes off a bit contrived.

And again, you are allowed to feel contrived. I doubt you'd feel it was any less contrived if I had only given him one son, or no sons but a brother, or a cousin instead. I feel like you're splitting hairs at this point.

You don't have to, I know a hoard myself. As well as a hoard of patricide and fratricide inspired civil wars.
However, you have the wizard-king assuming that as an absolute and automatic outcome.
This is where it conflicts with excluding any other children:
The wizard-king "knew" he needed an heir for 72 years, he knew his two direct children were unsuitable, and . . . he did nothing all that time to arrange for another heir? No "forced" arranged marriages? No adopted advisor? Nothing?
That's really working against him being a particularly qualified ruler in the first place if you are using that structure.

Why did Roy put so much emphasis on getting Durkon resurrected knowing that Xykon was at the final gate and could get through its defenses any minute? Surely he must have understood that Durkon's resurrection could wait until after they had saved the world! Roy should have just not dealt with the Godsmoot at all and instead used the teleport orb to send the party right to the final gate and kicked Xykon's bony behind pronto stat. The fact that they went through all that Godsmoot stuff is so contrived!

The actions that characters--from any story--take are precisely because the narrative calls for it for one reason or another. In my story, I needed a seemingly Good character who felt he had no other option but to commit to lich-ification--a process (more on this later) that is inherently Evil. As such, I had the Wizard-King look at his own sons AND within his royal court AND his kingdom as a whole, and after doing so he ultimately decided he couldn't find anybody who possessed ALL the qualities necessary to keep the kingdom from descending back into chaos and bloodlust after his death. In desperation, he decides he has to find a way to not die. That desperation drives him to commit to the Evil process of lich-ification, which required the murder of his own sons. Saying he should have tried harder, or that he should have been more flexible on his criteria for rulership, or anything else along those lines, does nothing for the purposes of this story--he tried as hard as he thought he could, and he felt that he couldn't be more flexible on the criteria because he felt doing so would jeopardize the kingdom's safety. The end, now discuss if you think he's still a Good person or not. You do not think he is, and have explained your position accordingly.

Well . . . yeah. You do. That's the whole point of that saying that you quote - all the Good intentions do not change what you are from being Evil when you make a choice like that.
And note, that is your choice for a saying to refer to, not mine.
Your narrative goal is not fitting your declared background assumption.

Clearly we are of different minds on what "The road to Hell was paved with Good intentions" means. Regardless, my narrative goal is exactly in line with what I wrote. You just don't like what I wrote.

That's precisely how I view the alignment system.
I am pointing out that you have placed certain actions at certain points and then trying to move them from the fixed positions you have assigned them.

Wrong; I'm not saying any Evil actions are actually Good actions or otherwise trying to "move them" on the alignment spectrum. I'm saying Good characters can sometimes take Evil actions, and asking if this still means they can be Good characters overall. It is clear where you stand on this, based on what you have said and by your stated view on how the alignment system should operate. I don't view a character's overall alignment so rigidly, as a general rule of practice, so clearly our views are at odds with one another.

Right here:

Rule: Becoming a lich is evil.
Violation: But this one isn't.

Either your rule is that becoming a lich is Evil or it isn't.
It doesn't matter that a person was Good before making that choice. It matters that he did, and thus cannot be Good.

The process of becoming a lich is evil, yes, and I have never indicated otherwise. Where you are getting that from, I have no idea.

The question I am exploring is "Can there be such a thing as a Good, or at least "not evil" Lich? If so, how might this be accomplished?" As I have repeatedly said, you can't make a Lich without having the character commit to doing something horribly evil--I think we're both in agreement on this fact. Where we seem to differ (for the purposes of this argument) is whether committing to lich-dom immediately makes this character Evil forever and always. You say "Yes!" I say, "Maybe not." The Wizard-King killing his sons to become a lich is Evil. The Wizard-King ruling as compassionately and justly as he had before becoming a lich (and in the process increasing the overall prosperity and happiness of his kingdom) is Good. Is ruling in this Good manner for centuries--maybe even all eternity, since he is now immortal--enough to make him, overall, a Good (or at least "not Evil") person?

Now it is possible you are conflating being of Good alignment with "be considered a good person".
Those two are quite distinct, and it is indeed quite possible to be thoroughly Evil and still be considered a good (decent/heroic/noble) person.
That is an artifact of the language used, with "Good" (capitalized) having a specific objective value within the game rules, and "good" (not-capitalized) having an indeterminate subjective value within the game narrative.

Look, I understand your point that "The alignment system says these actions are Good, and these actions are Evil, and if you commit Evil actions there is no way you can be Good." The alignment system is also OK with a Good-aligned PC willfully slaughtering orcs "just because" or killing a Black Dragon for its hoard--they're all listed as Evil in the Monster Manual, so don't worry about any alignment repercussions! In my opinion, viewing the alignment system in the rigid way that you do closes it off to nuance and creative thinking in almost all situations. I prefer to judge a character's actions based on the circumstances, with the understanding that sometimes characters take actions that go against their alignment but that this still might not ultimately change their alignment forever. You're free to think/play differently.

Of course you could.
Because that is the [I]subjective element of his alignment, as opposed to the objective element. (Though there are objective qualities to being Lawful versus Neutral versus Chaotic.)

Hate to break it to you, friend, but it's ALL subjective. No game table is 100% like another, as others have pointed out.

Destro_Yersul

2017-04-05, 12:22 AM

You know, the most unrealistic part of this strikes me not as the fact that an undead lord is rulling well and fairly, because I have no problem with that, but the fact that the people under a reasonable ruler would actually say he's a reasonable ruler instead of complaining about taxes and such :smalltongue:.

Maybe that's what is meant by them saying it - they have complaints, but their complaints are minor.

Pretty much this. It's not that he's perfect, and they probably do complain about taxes, it's just that the surrounding lands all tell stories of puppy kicking and suchlike, none of which actually exists.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-05, 11:25 AM

Look, I understand your point that "The alignment system says these actions are Good, and these actions are Evil, and if you commit Evil actions there is no way you can be Good." The alignment system is also OK with a Good-aligned PC willfully slaughtering orcs "just because" or killing a Black Dragon for its hoard--they're all listed as Evil in the Monster Manual, so don't worry about any alignment repercussions! In my opinion, viewing the alignment system in the rigid way that you do closes it off to nuance and creative thinking in almost all situations. I prefer to judge a character's actions based on the circumstances, with the understanding that sometimes characters take actions that go against their alignment but that this still might not ultimately change their alignment forever. You're free to think/play differently.

IMO, alignment and "good and evil are cosmic forces" morality immediately start to break down into what TV Tropes calls "blue-and-orange morality" the instant you start to look under the hood. In D&D, "good" and "evil" are just team jerseys for teams playing by slightly different rules.

thamolas

2017-04-05, 11:43 AM

ImNotTrevor

2017-04-05, 12:06 PM

IMO, alignment and "good and evil are cosmic forces" morality immediately start to break down into what TV Tropes calls "blue-and-orange morality" the instant you start to look under the hood. In D&D, "good" and "evil" are just team jerseys for teams playing by slightly different rules.

I don't think that D&D ever tries to assert otherwise.

>_>

Mordar

2017-04-05, 12:15 PM

In the conversation in this thread, one of the recurring points is basically 'is the Lich evil enough to counter-balance the good that they're actively doing?'. This is actually two points that are being intermingled. One point is 'can the Lich have a Good alignment?', the other is 'should moral individuals permit the Lich's reign to continue?'. The former point is in some sense a definitional one - you can say 'the cosmos defines Good and Evil in such a way, and definitionally the Lich ritual prevents one from ever holding a Good alignment again' - which on its own isn't so contentious.

But then the problem is that this is being used to implicitly forward a moral argument, along the lines of - since the Lich is Evil, his continued reign cannot possibly be morally right. In the objection to that transition, there were requests to define just what act the Lich could have taken which would lead to that conclusion. Basically that's a rejection of the premise that Evil equates to morally unacceptable.

So when the meta-fact that the Lich ritual is 'sufficiently evil that X' is brought into play, it has the form of argumentation of 'imagine the counter-argument that would convince you'. E.g. it excludes the possibility that you can reach your own determination which might disagree with the established meta-fact. But that determination is exactly the thing in question in the second line of argument. So this feels like using metagame considerations like 'this is needed for the game to run smoothly' in order to forward an abstract argument about morality.

I think that's basically the misunderstanding between the 'metafact' side of this debate and Max_Killjoy's side. The meta-fact was presented as an argument, (it seems to me that) he felt that there was something fishy about that line and asked for clarification in the form of concretization, and then is told in response 'no, it can't be concretized, you have to accept the abstract position because (practical reasons for running games)'. So that's just going to make the feeling that something fishy is going on worse, leading to a lot of back and forth with both sides not really making headway (it seems).

Which, IMO, amounts to mistaking a pragmatic expository tool for a form of logical argumentation. The GM must use metafacts because of practical considerations, but that's a different situation than people debating a point of contention.

I really enjoyed this post and primarily responded just so I could say "thank you for writing something so enjoyable on the discussion".

In particular I found the first paragraph to be particularly good. I am solidly on the side of what I believe you are calling the metafact side of the debate - the process of becoming a lich is undeniably and potentially irredeemably evil, and the particulars that render it so should not be spelled out in the rules for an array of reasons. However, I am very open to the possibility (and certainly the debate) of your second question - can/should moral persons allow the lich's reign to continue (though I would have specifically stuck with the Paladin in place of moral persons, because I think the answer could easily be different depending on the strictures of the Paladin order).

I have always held to the thought that the lich must perform the required acts solely for the purposes of amassing personal power (in the form of immortality) and so had never considered the whole "become evil for the greater good" side of things. I still don't quite buy it because I think the study/dedication/preparation are such that it couldn't be a snap decision in the face of an impending horrible calamity, as well as the potential that "the magic knows" if the ritual is being performed for its true purpose. That being said, I think that's much more in the realm of personal interpretation. And, it doesn't really address the question of "could a lich be a fair and not-so-bad ruler of a kingdom?"

That's probably why in my mind the hangup on what has to be done to become a lich was far less important than the discussion of the immediate questions of the OP.

Anyway, again I really enjoyed your post.

- M

Reboot

2017-04-05, 12:52 PM

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-05, 01:00 PM

I don't think that D&D ever tries to assert otherwise.

>_>

Perhaps, perhaps not, but plenty of players of the game and other commentators (see, this thread) DO often assert otherwise.

halfeye

2017-04-05, 01:01 PM

I am solidly on the side of what I believe you are calling the metafact side of the debate - the process of becoming a lich is undeniably and potentially irredeemably evil, and the particulars that render it so should not be spelled out in the rules for an array of reasons.

The problem with that is that different people in real life have incompatible definitions of (irredeemably) evil. Hitler's view of irredeemably evil probably started with "not aryn" (aryn probably pismelled, but I really don't want to know the correct spelling of that).

It is not the case that evil has one meaning that everyone understands. Unlike say sex, where male and female are generally understood, there are boundary cases where arguments can occur, but that's on the boundary, always, with evil, all the cases are up for discussion.

Tiktakkat

2017-04-05, 01:14 PM

The process of becoming a lich is evil, yes, and I have never indicated otherwise. Where you are getting that from, I have no idea.

From right here:

The question I am exploring is "Can there be such a thing as a Good, or at least "not evil" Lich? If so, how might this be accomplished?"

Thus where your entire narrative breaks down, and the story falls apart, becoming contrived to build such an exception.

Psyren

2017-04-05, 01:39 PM

Mordar

2017-04-05, 02:06 PM

The problem with that is that different people in real life have incompatible definitions of (irredeemably) evil. Hitler's view of irredeemably evil probably started with "not aryn" (aryn probably pismelled, but I really don't want to know the correct spelling of that).

It is not the case that evil has one meaning that everyone understands. Unlike say sex, where male and female are generally understood, there are boundary cases where arguments can occur, but that's on the boundary, always, with evil, all the cases are up for discussion.

I believe the "problem" that you highlight is perhaps the best reason for NOT specifying the act(s) necessary to achieve lichdom in the general ruleset...so that it can be specifically defined as necessary for the specific table/game group. Spell it all out and you get, among other things, the "evil hipsters" who are in a rush to show just how unaffected and blase they are by saying "tish tosh, that's hardly evil at all. I [insert foolishness here] on a regular basis, so you need something much worst to impress ME as evil" or similar crap.

I left the irredeemable as a potential as well...could easily envision stories/campaigns/arcs that really delve into this discussion.

- M

ImNotTrevor

2017-04-05, 02:10 PM

Perhaps, perhaps not, but plenty of players of the game and other commentators (see, this thread) DO often assert otherwise.

That's not your problem, though. They have a different opinion of how to run their games.

In the immortal words of The Dude,
That's just, like, [their] opinion, man.

Segev

2017-04-05, 02:38 PM

And this is getting into another reason why I don't like it. It's thematic, not factual. It's not "here's what the would-be lich must do, is it evil?", it's "what the would-be lich has to do MUST be evil, so no matter how far you have to imagine for it to be evil, that's what it is". It's a bottomless rabbit-hole, and evil just because it must be evil on this side of the 4th wall. The point I think you're missing is that we're discussing a meta-game construct. The idea here is that becoming a lich is supposed to be evil.

In any particular story, at any particular table, what the process is can be as factually set in stone as the writers, creators, gamers, whatever like. When you get into any particular story, you can set in stone the horribly vile process and have characters, in character, analyze it for how justifiable they think it is. Perhaps you will find yourself saying, "Nonsense; King Lich is perfectly reasonable as a ruler, and that act spelled out in this setting's rules of how to do it is totally made up for by how great a king he's been!" This would indicate that this act probably isn't as vile as D&D asks for it to be. Perhaps, even, that you and the author have vastly different ideas of just how evil that act spelled out is.

The meta-rule is there for the same reason that the meta-rule that "demons are evil, yo" is there. If demons don't behave (overall) in a fashion that you consider evil, they're not behaving "properly." If you find that devils, overall, tend to behave the way you'd expect a perfectly reasonable but imperfect (and definitely not evil) individual to behave, then they're not behaving "right" for devils.

Same idea: it's a meta-rule. D&D isn't going to spell out the full depths and breadth of fiendish behavior; it's enough to know that they are literally made of Evil and behave in ways that are evil by nature. Liches had to do something so horrific that you - as the reader/audience - agree it was abhorrent and (at least nearly) unforgivable to make their phylacteries.

In a given story, the act can be spelled out specifically. It's left to each DM or writer to do so for his own setting, table, or story.

Here's the problem, as has been explained to you multiple times:

Not every table is at the same level of OK-ness or Revulsion of bad things.This is a big part of it, too.
The writers have implied the following heavily, but stopped short of outright saying it. I think this is essentially their point:

"The specifics of the process to become a Lich are not listed here. This is because it may vary from table to table. The main thrust of Lichdom is that attaining it is an undeniable act of Evil. Only the most vile of beings would consider undertaking the process, as the actions required are among the most vile a being could ever partake in. What these actions are may vary by group due to personal moral differences and culture, but the main thrust is that it is something the entire table would agree as being nigh irredeemably evil. If you feel the need to discuss the specifics at your table, that is yours to do and not ours to provide."Exactly.

It is a meta-rule. When designing your setting, when creating your liches, when defining the phylactery-making process (if you choose to do so), this is the guide you're meant to be following. If you define the ritual in such a way that you don't think it is "unspeakably evil" (in the colloquial sense of "unspeakable"), then you're engaging in a house rule that makes the ritual less evil than it's supposed to be.

Which is fine, if that's what you want. But it isn't somehow horrible design to have the game system say: "Liches are supposed to have demonstrated that they are deplorably evil by simple fact of having done what it took to turn themselves into one. Whatever it takes, it should demonstrate that they're willing to stoop to ANY depths of villainy to achieve their immortality."

This is why its important to separate metagame considerations from moral/ethical/practical/etc in-character considerations. This, too, states it quite well.

The characters in the world don't have to care whether or not their behavior patterns make it easier or harder for the players and GM to buy into the desired thematics. That is to say, choosing to ignore informed attributes as handed down by the GM is a perfectly valid thing to do in-character. The GM can say 'at this table, kicking a puppy is unforgivably evil' and then a player is still free to go and consider a puppy-kicker forgiven. Similarly, the GM may say 'but, to become a lich you have to do something unspeakably evil' and players are free to say 'well, I have no actual reason to care since I haven't judged this unspeakably evil thing for myself'. If the GM says 'imagine the worst thing possible, that you could never forgive; he did that' the player can still say 'okay, imagined. I forgive him anyways.'Right. If a DM has some idea of what is good or evil with which you, the player, or your PC (or both) disagree, and you (and your PC) consider your PC to be perfectly good as a person despite the setting declaring him vile evil (or, conversely, consider him to be a horrific monster when the setting considers him a paragon of virtue), that's fine. As long as the setting's designation doesn't bother you. If it does...well, that's an OOC problem to deal with: you and the DM have differing moral beliefs, and need to resolve that difference. ("Agree to disagree" is a valid resolution. I'm not saying you have to convert each other.)

Meta-facts as a method for exploratory framing are one thing. Meta-facts as a way to compel agreement, behavior, or as a mode of proof or demonstration in argument are quite another thing. 'Imagine the argument that would convince you that you're wrong and pretend I just said it' isn't really a valid form of argumentation, and that's what it reads like when they're used to argue a point crossing in-character and out-of-character considerations.That's not quite what's going on here. What's going on here is a statement that liches are SUPPOSED to be evil, and that you're doing liches "wrong" if you create the facts of your setting to make them non-evil.

Now, if the argument being made is, "There is no act that can be so depraved and evil that it being part of making a phylactery could counteract a lich being a good and noble ruler and thus being a Good person," well, that's another matter.

Of course, if one were to invoke Godwin's Law, one could ask a simple question: If Hitler were a lich who now ruled an idyllic Germany, and the Holocaust was his creation of his phylactery, how long must he rule as a benevolent, wise, and nigh-angelic authority figure before his sins are washed away?

And before you think this an unfair question, I'll point out that it's been asked in fiction more than once, usually with a Nazi officer (or fictional equivalent) hiding out as a good, kind man who does wonderful things for the community and is beloved by all...now being called to account for his evil as Dr. Mengele's sadistic assistant or some other over-the-top willing participation in that horror. So it's not "just" an unanswerable question.

So, now, my question is this: is anybody asserting that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a lich's phylactery-making process to involve something so evil that you can't have "a good lich" on balance? Consider in particular the case of the lich who is "good, on balance" because he had a "good enough" reason to become a lich that it automatically justified the phylactery-making evil act. Is anybody claiming it is impossible to have an act so evil that it makes it impossible to justify, no matter what "good" reason the would-be lich might have? Or is it true that, for any Good Reason the would-be lich might have, one could come up with an act so deplorable that it wouldn't be "worth it?"

halfeye

2017-04-05, 03:29 PM

Now, if the argument being made is, "There is no act that can be so depraved and evil that it being part of making a phylactery could counteract a lich being a good and noble ruler and thus being a Good person," well, that's another matter.

That's not an argument I am in any way attempting to make.

Of course, if one were to invoke Godwin's Law, one could ask a simple question: If Hitler were a lich who now ruled an idyllic Germany, and the Holocaust was his creation of his phylactery, how long must he rule as a benevolent, wise, and nigh-angelic authority figure before his sins are washed away?

And before you think this an unfair question, I'll point out that it's been asked in fiction more than once, usually with a Nazi officer (or fictional equivalent) hiding out as a good, kind man who does wonderful things for the community and is beloved by all...now being called to account for his evil as Dr. Mengele's sadistic assistant or some other over-the-top willing participation in that horror. So it's not "just" an unanswerable question.

That also isn't a question I am interested in.

At Hitler's table, being a holocaust victim would be being evil enough to make you a lich. Obviously, there are no such things as liches in real life, and Hitler was prior to D&D, so those are whys it didn't happen, but the question "what is evil?" has so become so confused as to not make sense in the process.

So, now, my question is this: is anybody asserting that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a lich's phylactery-making process to involve something so evil that you can't have "a good lich" on balance? Consider in particular the case of the lich who is "good, on balance" because he had a "good enough" reason to become a lich that it automatically justified the phylactery-making evil act. Is anybody claiming it is impossible to have an act so evil that it makes it impossible to justify, no matter what "good" reason the would-be lich might have? Or is it true that, for any Good Reason the would-be lich might have, one could come up with an act so deplorable that it wouldn't be "worth it?"

The thing is there is no universal definition of good or evil that makes sense, from my POV and hopefully everyone else reading this' POV being a holocaust victim wouldn't be enough to make a lich, but there were people, and may still be people, for whom that isn't so.

Mordar

2017-04-05, 03:30 PM

So, now, my question is this: is anybody asserting that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a lich's phylactery-making process to involve something so evil that you can't have "a good lich" on balance? Consider in particular the case of the lich who is "good, on balance" because he had a "good enough" reason to become a lich that it automatically justified the phylactery-making evil act. Is anybody claiming it is impossible to have an act so evil that it makes it impossible to justify, no matter what "good" reason the would-be lich might have? Or is it true that, for any Good Reason the would-be lich might have, one could come up with an act so deplorable that it wouldn't be "worth it?"

This is one I've been thinking about as well.

Without much in the way of rules-based justification, I don't think the "becoming" process should be able to be done in response to imminent catastrophe. So for me, the question of "could Sam the Swell sacrifice himself to become a lich to save the Country of Kingdomsville from the horrible fate that is on the horizon" is answered with "No, Sam hasn't spent the years of study, energy and effort preparing the ritual necessary to become a lich." Now, if there is a variation where we know in a decade that something will occur that will destroy the Country of Kingdomsville if Sam isn't in place, as a lich, to stop it...then I think I could better engage in the discussion.

So let's say the "good enough" reason is far enough out on the horizon to accommodate the time needed to learn and prepare and execute the ritual.

Does the process of the preparation start the slide towards evil? I think it probably should, but that should be considered as well. Does that slide mitigate or remove the willingness of Sam the Swell to complete the process and stand in opposition to the impending calamity? I think it very probably would, particularly if there is a significant chance that the lich may be destroyed by opposing the calamity. But perhaps that is baked into the process as well, and Sam the (No Longer So) Swell completes the process and shows up on Calamity Day and does his job.

So now the calamity is averted (for those that survived the more personal calamity of the lichmaking process). Where does the Sam the Lich stand on the cosmic scale?

I believe he still stands on the side of evil. His nature has been changed and while he opposed the calamity, he still represents a force for evil. Perhaps he has balanced the cost of the ritual, though. Now it is a more "standard" flavor of evil. So it is up to what happens next to determine his ultimate fate or position.

If he defies his nature and unlives out his days as a force for good, I think he might well wash out the rest of the stain and be at least neutral. If he lives out his days as a force for not-evil (no active badness) I think he still goes down with a black mark against him.

The best possible case, in my opinion, is that he complete the process necessary with a built-in weakness for the phylactery known to his companions...he gives the appropriate companion the phylactery and secrets him away so he isn't caught up in Calamity Day...and then after whatever is necessary to keep the calamity at bay (that required lichdom)...the companion destroys the phylactery. In this case, Sam the Swell has sacrificed everything. He sacrificed his moral fiber and essence to become this evil thing that is necessary to stop a worse evil thing, and then he sacrificed any possible benefit he may have gained by so doing in willfully preparing for and empowering the destruction of his immortality and power. He truly gains nothing by the process, loses parts of himself, and winks out of existence at the end. Then I believe Sam the Swell is probably a hero.

- M

The Aboleth

2017-04-05, 03:39 PM

From right here:

Thus where your entire narrative breaks down, and the story falls apart, becoming contrived to build such an exception.

No, the narrative doesn't break down; it just doesn't fit how you view the alignment system. I constructed a narrative the presents a Good character taking an Evil action for what he believes to be ultimately Good reasons. He doesn't shy away from it's evilness--he knows what he's doing is Evil, but he believes it to be the only way to achieve what he sees as the "greater Good." I then ask, "Can he still be considered Good--at any point after the fact--once he has taken this Evil action?" You saying "Your narrative breaks down!" doesn't mean it breaks down, it just means you don't agree with the premise from its outset and feel such a premise is contrived.

I really don't know how else to explain it. I feel like we're just going to have to agree to disagree at this point.

EDIT: Put another way: The act of becoming a Lich is Evil, but whereas I am leaving open the possibility of the Lich itself having an alignment other than Evil somewhere down the line, you contend that no such possibility exists because the process of becoming a Lich irreversibly changes one's alignment to Evil forever and always. This is where the disagreement exists, as I see it.

Segev

2017-04-05, 03:45 PM

The thing is there is no universal definition of good or evil that makes sense.

I've actually argued the contrary before. If nothing else, the fact that Enlightened Self-Interest so often aligns with what people would term "Good" is ... interesting.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-05, 04:20 PM

That's not your problem, though. They have a different opinion of how to run their games.

In the immortal words of The Dude,
That's just, like, [their] opinion, man.

The Dude was an idiot.

We're not talking about their individual games, or their opinions or how to run them. If people want to insert their position on the matter into the discussion at hand, then it's no longer about their table or their game or how they individually chose to run it.

The point I think you're missing is that we're discussing a meta-game construct. The idea here is that becoming a lich is supposed to be evil.

In any particular story, at any particular table, what the process is can be as factually set in stone as the writers, creators, gamers, whatever like. When you get into any particular story, you can set in stone the horribly vile process and have characters, in character, analyze it for how justifiable they think it is. Perhaps you will find yourself saying, "Nonsense; King Lich is perfectly reasonable as a ruler, and that act spelled out in this setting's rules of how to do it is totally made up for by how great a king he's been!" This would indicate that this act probably isn't as vile as D&D asks for it to be. Perhaps, even, that you and the author have vastly different ideas of just how evil that act spelled out is.

The meta-rule is there for the same reason that the meta-rule that "demons are evil, yo" is there. If demons don't behave (overall) in a fashion that you consider evil, they're not behaving "properly." If you find that devils, overall, tend to behave the way you'd expect a perfectly reasonable but imperfect (and definitely not evil) individual to behave, then they're not behaving "right" for devils.

Same idea: it's a meta-rule. D&D isn't going to spell out the full depths and breadth of fiendish behavior; it's enough to know that they are literally made of Evil and behave in ways that are evil by nature. Liches had to do something so horrific that you - as the reader/audience - agree it was abhorrent and (at least nearly) unforgivable to make their phylacteries.

In a given story, the act can be spelled out specifically. It's left to each DM or writer to do so for his own setting, table, or story.

This post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21883413&postcount=292) and this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21883549&postcount=296) by NichG do a good job of covering, in part, my rejection of that meta-game, meta-rules, meta-anything approach to this discussion. It's fine for framing what the individual GM has to do, but its utility ends there.

Knaight

2017-04-05, 04:27 PM

The good lich thing is a bit of a sidenote anyways. They could easily be evil because of their background - they became a lich because they wanted immortal life and didn't care who had to die to achieve that, they became a king because they wanted power, and now that they have power they're satisfied because they succeeded so there's no incentive for them to run the kingdom poorly. That goes against their desires to stay king, and so they govern well. That puts the intervening paladin in an awkward position - the lich is evil, the lich has done things that warrant retribution, but retribution takes out a leader who is better for the people than the inevitable dynastic conflict or straight up anarchy that follows. It becomes a question of collateral damage, of setting precedents, and of all sorts of things that make it a bit more complicated than "there's a badguy, let's kill him".

Segev

2017-04-05, 04:45 PM

We're not talking about their individual games, or their opinions or how to run them. If people want to insert their position on the matter into the discussion at hand, then it's no longer about their table or their game or how they individually chose to run it.

Maybe I'm missing some context, but if this is saying what I think it means, then no, we're not talking about individual games, but until we start talking about individual games, we don't have a specific act. We have a rule for determining what that act can be in a specific game.

Another way to think of it is: building a phylactery has a requirement that you BE EVIL to do it. Your alignment must be "any evil" or you cannot build it. Add a clause, if doing this in PF, that you can't use Spellcraft to overcome this requirement, either.

This is akin to a PrC or archetype that requires your alignment to be a specific thing. You can't become a level 1 Paladin without being LG. You can't become a Monk without being Lawful. You can't become an Assassin without being Evil. You can't take the Undead Master archetype for Wizards without being Evil. You can't build a Phylactery without being Evil.

Mechanics-wise, this is a prohibition that requires you do something to be that alignment to do what you want. Fluff-wise, when alignment is descriptive, it probably is an indication that you can't actually do what you must to obtain that skill suite without becoming evil by virtue of having done that which was necessary to learn that skill suite.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-05, 04:52 PM

Maybe I'm missing some context, but if this is saying what I think it means, then no, we're not talking about individual games, but until we start talking about individual games, we don't have a specific act. We have a rule for determining what that act can be in a specific game.

Another way to think of it is: building a phylactery has a requirement that you BE EVIL to do it. Your alignment must be "any evil" or you cannot build it. Add a clause, if doing this in PF, that you can't use Spellcraft to overcome this requirement, either.

This is akin to a PrC or archetype that requires your alignment to be a specific thing. You can't become a level 1 Paladin without being LG. You can't become a Monk without being Lawful. You can't become an Assassin without being Evil. You can't take the Undead Master archetype for Wizards without being Evil. You can't build a Phylactery without being Evil.

Mechanics-wise, this is a prohibition that requires you do something to be that alignment to do what you want. Fluff-wise, when alignment is descriptive, it probably is an indication that you can't actually do what you must to obtain that skill suite without becoming evil by virtue of having done that which was necessary to learn that skill suite.

That is exactly backwards, however. If we're making an actual moral argument about the lich's actions, then that can't be based on "X is evil, by definition, whatever it takes", it has to be based on looking at the "what" and determining based on intent and effect whether or not it's actually evil.

As NichG said:

So when the meta-fact that the Lich ritual is 'sufficiently evil that X' is brought into play, it has the form of argumentation of 'imagine the counter-argument that would convince you'. E.g. it excludes the possibility that you can reach your own determination which might disagree with the established meta-fact. But that determination is exactly the thing in question in the second line of argument. So this feels like using metagame considerations like 'this is needed for the game to run smoothly' in order to forward an abstract argument about morality.

I refuse to accept a line of argument that precludes any disagreement simply by how it's framed.

Segev

2017-04-05, 05:30 PM

That is exactly backwards, however. If we're making an actual moral argument about the lich's actions, then that can't be based on "X is evil, by definition, whatever it takes", it has to be based on looking at the "what" and determining based on intent and effect whether or not it's actually evil.

(...)

I refuse to accept a line of argument that precludes any disagreement simply by how it's framed.

Okay. Here's the issue: we're not arguing that liches are evil because of the act, in a meta-sense. We are arguing that liches are evil because the rules say so.

You may as well argue that demons aren't really evil, either. They're evil because the rules say they are. It is presumed that they live up to this in-game.

Liches are required to do something horribly evil to become liches. The rules say so. What that is is not specified.

Demons are required to be evil. The rules say so. What their specific evil actions are is not specified. (Well, not always; we have examples. But not all demons have done all examples.)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to argue, for or against, really. Are you trying to say, "No, liches can be good, because the act they perform just isn't that evil?" Serious question; I don't know what point you're trying to make, nor what argument you think we're trying to disingenuously construct against it.

ImNotTrevor

2017-04-05, 06:45 PM

The Dude was an idiot.

Thats just, like, your opinion, man.

We're not talking about their individual games, or their opinions or how to run them. If people want to insert their position on the matter into the discussion at hand, then it's no longer about their table or their game or how they individually chose to run it.

This is... nonsensical to me. I don't even know how to approach this. By this logic it's impossible to say "Well, here's how I would handle this, personally, " without that being a declaration of how all people should do it. Which is obviously not true. And yet it is still a position about the matter at hand! So yeah.... this is flimsy at best.

This post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21883413&postcount=292) and this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21883549&postcount=296) by NichG do a good job of covering, in part, my rejection of that meta-game, meta-rules, meta-anything approach to this discussion. It's fine for framing what the individual GM has to do, but its utility ends there.

Translation: "I don't like meta-rules"

Noted. But D&D uses them, so that's not a helpful inclusion in a discussion centered around that. Since were are talking about a situation inherently reliant upon meta-rules, you cannot toss out the meta-rule without also throwing out the basis of the situation and the question flowing therefrom.

Once you have something concrete that applies to all tables, then the problem is answered by "Depends on your particular table's moral code and/or opinions of alignment." Which is a boring, though correct and fully encompassing, answer.

Currently, the answer is an interesting discussion about how much Absolute Good is required to outdo or eliminate Absolute Evil. That's a very interesting thing to talk about, hence why people are talking about it. Your demand leads to the answer I already gave, full stop.

Now, other people are going to discuss the interesting question that comes out of the metarule. You can continue to complain about the metarule, but you have the answer for no matter what concrete answer you give for the Lichdom process and a return to good:

It will ultimately depend upon the moral stance and opinions of your table.

Regardless of the facts of the process, that will be the answer of how this situation is resolved correctly.

The individual tables are always relevant to these discussions, because they are always based on at least one individual table.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-05, 07:44 PM

Okay. Here's the issue: we're not arguing that liches are evil because of the act, in a meta-sense. We are arguing that liches are evil because the rules say so.

You may as well argue that demons aren't really evil, either. They're evil because the rules say they are. It is presumed that they live up to this in-game.

Liches are required to do something horribly evil to become liches. The rules say so. What that is is not specified.

Demons are required to be evil. The rules say so. What their specific evil actions are is not specified. (Well, not always; we have examples. But not all demons have done all examples.)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to argue, for or against, really. Are you trying to say, "No, liches can be good, because the act they perform just isn't that evil?" Serious question; I don't know what point you're trying to make, nor what argument you think we're trying to disingenuously construct against it.

I'm arguing against (and this list is not inclusive):

* morality by fiat -- declaring that a being is evil "because it's evil", or "because I said so"

* morality by nature -- that a being is evil "by its very nature", in a vacuum, with no need to consider its intentions, actions, and effects

* morality by meta-rules -- declaring a being "evil" by rule and expecting the setting and characters and story to contort themselves around that so-called "fact"

* the very concept of "good" and "evil" as cosmic forces or energies, as opposed to purely descriptive labels applied to either a particular action or a being based on the sum of their actions.

* the notion that D&D alignment has anything to do with actual morality to begin with, rather than just being team jerseys that tell the players who their PCs can kill without hesitation or guilt without mystically being "traded" to the other "team" -- as discussed at length many elsewheres, it's trivially easy to create gaps between the alignment system and anything like actual morality

* the use of "meta-facts" and "meta-rules" in arguing a position, so as to frame disagreement as impossible -- the "imagine an answer which convinces you" fallacy as laid out by NichG very eloquently

Milo v3

2017-04-05, 07:58 PM

* morality by fiat -- declaring that a being is evil "because it's evil", or "because I said so"
Which has nothing to do with the current discussion.

* morality by nature -- that a being is evil "by its very nature", in a vacuum, with no need to consider its intentions, actions, and effects
Which has nothing to do with the current discussion.

* morality by meta-rules -- declaring a being "evil" by rule and expecting the setting and characters and story to contort themselves around that so-called "fact"
It's not a meta-rule. It's just a rule, that things are evil in alignment if they are evil.

* the very concept of "good" and "evil" as cosmic forces or energies, as opposed to purely descriptive labels applied to either a particular action or a being based on the sum of their actions.
Too bad. The game being discussed has that. Just because you dislike something doesn't make it bad or a problem. (Note: I dislike it as well and removed objective morality from my Pathfinder games, but that doesn't change the fact that what we are discussing uses it)

* the notion that D&D alignment has anything to do with actual morality to begin with, rather than just being team jerseys that tell the players who their PCs can kill without hesitation or guilt without mystically being "traded" to the other "team" -- as discussed at length many elsewheres, it's trivially easy to create gaps between the alignment system and anything like actual morality
Which has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-05, 08:03 PM

Which has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Which has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Which has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Are we perhaps reading different threads?

It doesn't matter if the lich is the legitimate ruler of a kingdom. As a lich, nothing it does can be legitimate, including ruling.
As for laws not prohibiting being an undead monster, again by definition those cannot be legitimate lawful and good laws, so the paladin is not obligated to acknowledge them.
And note, you said "fairly enough (for an evil creature)", so . . . still enslaving them, torturing them, executing them, stealing their souls, and all that stuff, just for "actual" reasons and not just for "teh evulz". Which means, yeah, still evil.

Now, does that mean the paladin must go Lawful Stupid Murder Hobo "just because"?
Not even close. Perhaps if he belongs to some order dedicated to destroying the undead, but even then there are other considerations that will make a mad suicide rush less than paladin-y.
If he lives there, he is likely to start a "liberation" movement.
If he visits, he will like agitate against submitting to the rule of an inhuman monster.
If the lich visits, he will have to consider just why he is working with a kingdom that works with such unholy abominations, and like have to move on or contemplate a local regime change. (If he isn't already because the kingdom hasn't outlawed being an evil undead beast.)

What he cannot do is just shrug it off as if it has no meaning at all.
He is a paladin, and cannot work with or for an evil creature. So no working from within to change things or anything like that, or looking the other way until the rest of the party gets suckered into a mission and he just has to help them on their quest for the lich.

The situation should be impossible to begin with.

Evil is not the result of actions, the actions are the result of evil. A Lich is by definition evil and unnatural. Therefore, the Lich's kingdom should not fairly ruled. Positing that a Lich could rule a kingdom in a way that "treats people fairly enough" is the same as positing a river that flows upstream.

But let's say that this *is* a river that flows upstream. Just for the sake of your premise.

The paladin would then have to fall.

A paladin must be both good and lawful. Being good, the paladin cannot tolerate the evil Lich doing what he wants if the paladin could combat him. Being lawful, the paladin must respect the Lich's legitimacy as ruler. Therefore, the paladin falls whether or not he attempts to remove the Lich from power.

This doesn't make too much sense, but of course, it doesn't make too much sense before the Lich fairly ruling a kingdom didn't make sense to begin with.

This is really dependant on setting. In this hypothetical, is undeath automatically evil? Does alignment manipulate a persons actions or is alignment determined by ones actions?

By the rules we have from the lich entry in the MM, becoming one requires an act of "unspeakable evil." Though this act is unspecified, something about making the phylactery and becoming a lich, something in the process somewhere, is an act so horrifically evil that anybody who knows of it is (at least metaphorically) unable to speak of it for how monstrous it is. It is something that willfully doing it is unquestionably evil by nearly any standard, and thus no matter how good you are otherwise, your willingness to engage in this is soul-staining.

Imagine the most saintly person you can think of. Somebody whom the world would be better off if (s)he were in it for all eternity. Now think of an act so terrible that, if you learned this person had performed it, you'd not just think less of them, but revile them for their depravity. Even if they only did it once, and only for the "good of the world" in keeping them active in it.

Perhaps it requires rape and murder of many innocents. Perhaps it requires breaking a soul's will to exist. Perhaps it requires wearing white after Labor Day.

Regardless, anybody who has undertaken the process of becoming a lich is a monstrous being, willing to do something horrific just to preserve their own existence. No matter what else, they chose that.

However, after that, they are not required to do anything evil ever again. It is conceivable to have a lich who suffered a change of heart and spends eternity trying to atone for his wrongs. (Any lich who went into it with this plan has a hard road ahead, as planning to "make up" for a wicked deed before you undertake it makes it all the harder to atone for the wickedness.)

Now, we also are told that, after some unspecified amount of time, liches wither away to demiliches. Demiliches require souls to keep functioning. So eventually, liches become soul-destroying monsters by necessity. But while in lich stage, they are not.

If this was in 5e, it'd be impossible, because of how Liches are in that edition. In the sense that even if they somehow ruled fairly, the Lich would do too much evil otherwise to be tolerated.

Come on. Liches are inherently evil, and kind of have to consume souls. A paladin going after one is always ok

I'm going to quote this to address all posts of the stripe.

I think the alignment system is best used as a portayal of the black and white morality that fits into the genre of D&D, which we can say imitates the nature of morality in Lord of the Rings, or a fairy tale, or a (stereotypical) medieval worldview. In Lord of the Rings, we don't question whether the balrog does anything good. He's evil. We don't question whether extermination of all orcs is good. We are told they are evil and that's enough. Similarly, we don't really question whether Cinderella's evil stepmother really deserved what came her way because maybe she was just mean to Cinderella and nice to everyone else. The way that these genre conceive morality permits no other way to look at it.

You run into problems applying modern morality to a system that was designed, intentionally or not, to force you into a different view of morality. The idea that people are not inherently good or evil, but that the sum of their deeds, which can be a bit of both, add up to our ability to broadly categorize someone as one or the other while knowingly understanding it is shorthand to do so is unsupported in this system. An analogy is imagine if you tried to play the White Wolf monster games with someone who so firmly believed in mind over matter that they didn't believe in things like mental illness and addiction. Their understanding of behavior would be incompatible wih the game's prescriptions for how to behave.

Liches, by definition, are terribly evil creatures. What you're suggesting is a "Good Lich" - something that exists outside of the normal interpretation. Liches are evil and thus cannot run a "fair and balanced" government because evil doesn't do that. Research the word "evil". Should help.

Mr. Burlew seems to be defending his characterization of Redcloak in this post. Sure, I don't see anything wrong with Redcloak. He works well in the story Rich Burlew is trying to tell.

But Rich Burlew doesn't justify why a more complex morality is better than a less complex one. He just assumes that a morality with black and white is less interesting, but I would say it is more interesting as well as being more natural for a game with D&D's alignment system.

It is more interesting because we already live in a world with complex morality. But role-playing is about casting off what you are familiar with and putting yourself in the role of something alien. A world of black and white morality is different from how I am used to thinking, but is also a concept I am familiar with from literature I like, and can be a *cooler* kind of world than the real world.

It is comparable to the setting of Warhammer. In the real world, we understand that witch hunts were a terrible thing, where innocent women (and some men) were persecuted, tortured, and killed. But Warhammer changes our morality by placing us in a world with different premises (that witchcraft is real and dangerous), and that is a good and fun thing because it allows us to roleplay something different than we're used to.

I see the "unspeakable evil" phrase as less a fig leaf, and more a tacit acknowledgement that it's going to have to be something you and your table find to fit the bill. That no amount of effort at being suitably depraved would be "enough" for every table, and would probably be "beyond okay" to even describe for others.

It tells us the essential part: whatever else is true about the lichification process, there is an act that is evil by whatever standard you care to apply which must be done as part of it.

Not as an excuse, but as simply saying, "come up with it yourself; it must be truly, horrifically evil." All it really does is guarantee that liches are nongood (and all but certainly evil). Because no good person would DO such a thing.

I always assumed that the act of unspeakable evil was informed evil. The same way as "Protection from good" is an Evil deed, only far more evil.
Not because anyone actually got harmed, but because the Cosmic Powers of Good and Evil say so.

And it is so incredible powerful evil because you mess with your own soul and it is a single act that will forever bar you from certain afterlifes. While things like mass murder can be forgiven and redemption is possible and you might still end up in some kind of heaven, separating your soul is evil and isolating it from the cosmos kinda prevents cleaning it from that particular evil.

In certain religions suicide was considered an unforgivable sin. Not because it was worse than anything else but because you are dead afterwards and can't atone for it anymore until you die. Becoming a Lich is probably similar and the reason why it is considered so evil.

I think the evil of becoming a lich is pretty simple. When a being dies, its soul goes to whatever outer plane, where its memories and essence ends up getting reabsorbed by the plane/the dieties. Willfully becoming undead denys this to deities, the creators and enforcers of good/evil. Even evil deities, perhaps moreso than good deities, crave power. You are denying them this. They see it as evil. You are taking what is rightfully theirs, and they do what they can to deny that. Even evil deities of undeath tend to prefer unintelligent undead, which are just corpses animated by negative energy.

On a sidenote, do evil deities think of themselves as evil, or are they like most humans that think themselves the only one in the right? Is Heironius evil to Hextor?

I think it works.

As for your paladin, I say he plays nice in all cases. It doesn't effect him. Unless you play paladins all leroy jenkins all the time smiting everything that pings regardless of anything else, he has no real reason to kill the lich. If a dragon is evil but protecting a village (and by extension his horde/food suppliers) from bandits, a paladin would not seek to eliminate that dragon. He would not work with it willingly, but he is not required by his oath to kill anything that is even remotely evil. And he would not be beholden to do something about said dragon either. He might try to convert it later but that would be it.

As for why become a lich, if its easy immortality or not, that doesn't have to be evil. Your wizard craves arcane power beyond all measure, but wants to study at his pace without regard for time, lichdom is an option. If he does nothing/has done nothing else to infringe upon anyone, can he still be evil? What if he needs that power for something, or he has to confront a threat far into the future with more experience than he has? Maybe he has an immediate need for power, the raiding village example for earlier, and has only 8 days to prepare (takes a week to do the ritual IIRC).

This is ignoring Baelnorns and archliches obviously.

As for why unspeakable evil, I think its meant as a balance point for the PCs from a game design perspective. You are supposed to play goodie two shoes characters, and be challenged, but being more or less unkillable as a PC needs to have a cost that makes it best suited for NPCs, insomuch as you are supposed to be the good guys.

My 2 copper.

It's important to remember this: if you think it's a justifiable, non-evil act, then it probably isn't whatever is required as part of the lich ritual. What is required by the lich ritual - whatever it is - is horrible. So vile, so evil, that nobody Good could truly justify it. Self-deluded rationalizations may apply, but that would be the closest one could come.

Indeed, they will.

That's the point. Because one person's "meh, not that bad" is another person's "beyond the pale," and that is others' "not in my gaming, please," we want to avoid a specific rule about what it is. It would be one person's "meh, that's hardly evil," and lead to heated debates over whether and how it could be justified, rather than dealing with the "unspeakable evil" that is supposed to be a requirement of lichdom. It would be just right for those who find it "beyond the pale," but for those who have it as "not in my gaming, please," it will potentially make the whole game a non-starter for them. It would fuel the fires of "D&D is satan worship" and other stupidity like that because it would give those who seek it "proof."

By leaving it up to each individual table to decide just what it is, or as a thing to hand-wave as "just seriously bad, okay? If he did it, he's done something EVIL no matter how you try to justify it," it can be used at any table who wants to without diluting it nor making it ... well, too squicky to use.

I don't see the logical connection to this conclusion. Mainly because I don't see how the assumption that we need "detail" to be sure we're talking about the same thing is valid, let alone how it connects to whether or not we're discussing just how evil a lich's actions had to be.

We have the important detail: Whatever it is, it's EVIL. No question, no justification, no mitigation. It's so horrifically evil that all at your table would agree it taints and subverts any "good" that might have come from his lichdom.

What the specific details are is quite the open subject, but we have the important criterion: if, for your group, an idea is justifiable in any way, and a great enough good can make it "worth it," that idea probably isn't the right one for the lich's "unspeakably evil" act. Discussing what kinds of acts might qualify is perfectly valid! And can be quite interesting, though may take a strong stomach depending on the creativity of some of those involved in the discussion.

We've already had some such discussion, with people commenting that something ongoing may be NECESSARY to create such genuine evil. After all, if one has an eternity to do good, how could one act stain all of that? We've also had examples of the kinds of acts one might do (murdering your own children has come up), with people chiming in as to why they find that insufficiently evil.

I contend that a lich tainting things by his existence doesn't qualify mainly because it ceases then to be a factor of his creation of the phylactery, and more a factor of his continued being.

But what if the act required the destruction of all hope for potential of a certain great good? Perhaps it consumes the potential lives of a family line, race, or species. Perhaps it cuts off through murder something that would have been a great force for good. Perhaps it so ruins a person or thing that it now creates harm when it could have created weal for many.

What if the act requires a great act of divination to even perform successfully: you must find the as-yet unrealized youths, children, babies, or parents of as-yet unborn such...who will one day become a party with a great destiny for good, and ritually sacrifice them all so that you can consume their destiny. Each time a depravity goes unthwarted, each time an evil grows unabated, and each time innocents suffer where they would not have thanks to the actions of that party, the lich's phylactery draws power to hold the lich's life force to the mortal plane. As one example of a potential evil act.

You could, again, even gauge it such that the divinations also rely on a hint of how much good the lich has the potential to do with his eternal existence, and thus require the sacrifices to be of a group who would have exceeded that good, through direct or indirect consequence-trees.

It is factual considering that evil is a literal thing with a degree of sentience in D&D. Evil decides if is your acts evil enough, since there are potentially hundreds of different evil things one could do.

Segev

2017-04-05, 08:11 PM

I'm arguing against (and this list is not inclusive):

* morality by fiat -- declaring that a being is evil "because it's evil", or "because I said so"

* morality by nature -- that a being is evil "by its very nature", in a vacuum, with no need to consider its intentions, actions, and effects

* morality by meta-rules -- declaring a being "evil" by rule and expecting the setting and characters and story to contort themselves around that so-called "fact"

* the very concept of "good" and "evil" as cosmic forces or energies, as opposed to purely descriptive labels applied to either a particular action or a being based on the sum of their actions.

* the notion that D&D alignment has anything to do with actual morality to begin with, rather than just being team jerseys that tell the players who their PCs can kill without hesitation or guilt without mystically being "traded" to the other "team" -- as discussed at length many elsewheres, it's trivially easy to create gaps between the alignment system and anything like actual morality

* the use of "meta-facts" and "meta-rules" in arguing a position, so as to frame disagreement as impossible -- the "imagine an answer which convinces you" fallacy as laid out by NichG very eloquently

So... essentially, you're against starting from a premise and building a setting to suit it?

It really seems like what you're arguing is, "D&D shouldn't have morality rules, because I don't like the notion." If I take what you've outlined here at face value, you object to the notion that a thing called a "demon" might actually be written to be evil, with the intent that the thing be evil. What "should" happen is that the writer call something a "demon," but not actually INTEND for it to be evil, and just have it do stuff that may or may not be evil.

If these seems absurd, good; it IS absurd. If somebody includes "demons" in a setting, and says, "I am going to write these things to be evil," it shouldn't be something rejected, even though it's only "because he said so." If somebody invites other writers to contribute to his collaborative setting, and says, "Okay, guys, here are some ground rules," and amongst those rules are, "No non-evil demons, because these things are evil by their nature. The rules of the setting are such that nothing non-evil could ever BE a demon," that shouldn't be immediately scoffed at as some sort of wicked, disingenuous argument.

There is nothing inherently wrong with there being a cosmic force of good and evil, nor with them corresponding in actuality with what we might recognize in the real world as morality. Of course, if you aren't a moral objectivist, you're going to say, "but that's totally arbitrary!" And even if you ARE a moral objectivist, you'll find people who have beliefs about morality that differ from yours, and thus will seem wrong. Whether they ARE wrong or not is beyond the scope of this thread; I am not even arguing that being morally objectivist is wrong (I happen to believe there is an objective morality, and that it is possible-but-difficult to discover).

"Max_Killjoy rejects D&D" is a valid position, but it's not going to gain a lot of traction in a discussion about D&D topics. This is, however, the Roleplaying Games forum, not the D&D 3.5/PF forum, so the only thing holding this to D&D's standards is that the author is discussing liches in that context.

Nobody has disagreed with the premise that, if you change the rules for how you become a lich so that the actions required are not evil, or are justifiable under whatever circumstances you contrive to justify them, you can't have a Good Lich. In fact, if you do so, the answer to the question posed in the OP is simple: The paladin doesn't attack the lich, because the lich isn't evil.

But, if you're using the D&D lich without house rules, then he is, by premise, somebody who has committed "an act of unspeakable evil."

Rejecting the notion of a meta-rule is rejecting any system that isn't custom-built for its precise setting.

In terms of actually discussing whether something is true or not, I agree with your premise that any argument which rejects all refutation as "invalid" because it disagrees with the argument is both flawed and frustrating to even deal with. But you're essentially trying to argue that the premise is false and shouldn't be the premise. Sure. If you reject the premise and declare it a priori false, by your argument it's false.

The reason I framed the question about whether it's POSSIBLE to have an action so evil that nothing could justify it is because I was setting up the way to actually build a logical argument that the premise is inherently flawed: proof by contradiction. Now, we have to use induction and a bit of extrapolation the way I set it up, but if you can, no matter what justification you come up with, also come up with an "unspeakably evil" act that would make the justification fail, then you uphold the premise that "it's just that evil" is viable as a rule. Or meta-rule. If you can't, then you've just proven that it is not a viable meta-rule. At least, you've made a strong case for it (since yes, it's possible somebody else who isn't present could...but stumping all comers is good enough, usually).

Heck, I'll restrict it a bit more: the act must be a one-off thing, and it must be something that would be doable in secret, since liches are not known for world-shaking calamities that draw attention every time they make a phylactery.

NichG

2017-04-05, 08:12 PM

Of course, if one were to invoke Godwin's Law, one could ask a simple question: If Hitler were a lich who now ruled an idyllic Germany, and the Holocaust was his creation of his phylactery, how long must he rule as a benevolent, wise, and nigh-angelic authority figure before his sins are washed away?

And before you think this an unfair question, I'll point out that it's been asked in fiction more than once, usually with a Nazi officer (or fictional equivalent) hiding out as a good, kind man who does wonderful things for the community and is beloved by all...now being called to account for his evil as Dr. Mengele's sadistic assistant or some other over-the-top willing participation in that horror. So it's not "just" an unanswerable question.

I found that I was able to arrive at a finite number range which I could emotionally come to terms with after thinking it through, but I think going into too much detail could be pretty offensive. So I guess I need a meta-fact here.

Segev

2017-04-05, 08:26 PM

I found that I was able to arrive at a finite number range which I could emotionally come to terms with after thinking it through, but I think going into too much detail could be pretty offensive. So I guess I need a meta-fact here.

Not to push this too far, then, but consider this: If you knew that Lichitler would meet and exceed that threshold of Sufficient Goodness, but that it would only be possible if he perpetrated the Holocaust, would you feel you had to stop him from doing it (assuming you could)? Would you feel you had to support him, aiding and condoning this great evil for the sake of the greater good?

I don't think it's enough to say you could emotionally come to terms with it; the question is, if Lichitler went into this with that intention, is he justified to the point that the great evil he is doing NOW, as you stand at the threshold of his pogrom's beginning, would still allow you to say, "He is a good man, and I support his necessary action?"

And no, I don't expect anybody to answer this publicly if they don't want to. It's meant to be an extremely unsettling question.

I would say, however, that if there is Sufficient Good that would come from this that you would actually support this horrific evil, then perhaps there is no such thing as "unspeakbly evil" and the lich-king of the OP can be so great and noble a leader that whatever he had to do to become what he is is justified to the point that a Paladin could not and should not bring him down.

(Note the presupposition here that the lich went into this knowing he was doing evil, but believing the ends justified it. If this were a lich-king who somehow had a genuine change of heart, it would be a different story altogether. Whether you think the outcome of the Paladin's proper choice differs between the two is not what I'm getting at; I'm literally just saying that it's an entirely different discussion.)

Edit: For another examination of the kind of question I'm getting at, read Ursela K. LeGuin's The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjqwMe-1o7TAhVW1GMKHVkgBZIQFggoMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fengl210-deykute.wikispaces.umb.edu%2Ffile%2Fview%2Fomelas. pdf&usg=AFQjCNH3-hhAVewhyjDlT-_AOb_yVIkr8A&sig2=6-55Whhym4UXNRnHQuYOuA).

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-05, 09:34 PM

Edit: For another examination of the kind of question I'm getting at, read Ursela K. LeGuin's The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjqwMe-1o7TAhVW1GMKHVkgBZIQFggoMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fengl210-deykute.wikispaces.umb.edu%2Ffile%2Fview%2Fomelas. pdf&usg=AFQjCNH3-hhAVewhyjDlT-_AOb_yVIkr8A&sig2=6-55Whhym4UXNRnHQuYOuA).

I linked to that several pages ago, to no avail.

NichG

2017-04-05, 09:49 PM

Not to push this too far, then, but consider this: If you knew that Lichitler would meet and exceed that threshold of Sufficient Goodness, but that it would only be possible if he perpetrated the Holocaust, would you feel you had to stop him from doing it (assuming you could)? Would you feel you had to support him, aiding and condoning this great evil for the sake of the greater good?

I don't think it's enough to say you could emotionally come to terms with it; the question is, if Lichitler went into this with that intention, is he justified to the point that the great evil he is doing NOW, as you stand at the threshold of his pogrom's beginning, would still allow you to say, "He is a good man, and I support his necessary action?"

And no, I don't expect anybody to answer this publicly if they don't want to. It's meant to be an extremely unsettling question.

I would say, however, that if there is Sufficient Good that would come from this that you would actually support this horrific evil, then perhaps there is no such thing as "unspeakbly evil" and the lich-king of the OP can be so great and noble a leader that whatever he had to do to become what he is is justified to the point that a Paladin could not and should not bring him down.

It's kind of a different question as to whether you forgive someone after something that can't be changed, versus whether you stop/support someone in the process of doing something wrong. If you forgive Hitler or not, that doesn't bring about the life or death of 80 million people - those people are already dead either way. So there's a big change in threshold between those cases. I wouldn't in general permit or support the same actions now that I would later forgive.

That's the tricky thing about coming upon an already existing Lich. They already did the evil act, there's no changing that. So the stakes aren't the same as they were in the moment of that act. Should the paladin prevent the king from becoming a lich is a different question than 'does the paladin need to overthrow the king who already became a lich'. On the other hand, the act of the paladin overthrowing the king in-the-moment does have immediate consequences for people other than the paladin and the lich.

I think the Omelas thing is a good example. Pretty clearly, a paladin should walk away from Omelas. But its unclear that a paladin would be in the right to destroy Omelas, usurping the decision from all of those who themselves chose not to walk away.

ImNotTrevor

2017-04-05, 10:05 PM

Are we perhaps reading different threads?

We clearly are, since none of those posts are, at their core, about the things you're rejecting. There might be individual sentences in there, but their core points are not the ones you're spending all this time refuting.

Also, again, since the premise requires these metarules to exist in the first place, and the discussion is about fiddling with a not-real moral system for what amounts to "Teh Giggles," I don't see why this is the place to plant yourself, stamp your feet, and declare that so such fun or nonsense is allowed.

If this discussion bothers your sensibilities, just don't participate. It's easy. It costs you nothing.

Segev

2017-04-05, 10:23 PM

It's kind of a different question as to whether you forgive someone after something that can't be changed, versus whether you stop/support someone in the process of doing something wrong.It is, depending. It certainly is if there is some element of repentance - a regret, and a wish to go back and undo the harm, a desire for penance - in the "it's done; now I can only try to atone" sense. But it seems the examples we're really being asked to examine are the lich kings who believed that their benevolent and prosperous rule was so important that they had to - had to - become immortal liches to preserve it for all future generations that they were justified in their evil act. Not liches who did it, and since changed to people who would not make the same decision.

The end villain of Watchman asks more the question as I think you're examining it: presented with his plot already having happened, could you forgive him, knowing that he feels no remorse and would do it again if he were sent back in time and given the option to change his mind? Is this still different than if you were there BEFORE he did it, and had to choose whether to stop him?

I think the Omelas thing is a good example. Pretty clearly, a paladin should walk away from Omelas. But its unclear that a paladin would be in the right to destroy Omelas, usurping the decision from all of those who themselves chose not to walk away.Is the Paladin right to merely walk away, and not rescue the child?

NichG

2017-04-05, 11:25 PM

It is, depending. It certainly is if there is some element of repentance - a regret, and a wish to go back and undo the harm, a desire for penance - in the "it's done; now I can only try to atone" sense. But it seems the examples we're really being asked to examine are the lich kings who believed that their benevolent and prosperous rule was so important that they had to - had to - become immortal liches to preserve it for all future generations that they were justified in their evil act. Not liches who did it, and since changed to people who would not make the same decision.

The end villain of Watchman asks more the question as I think you're examining it: presented with his plot already having happened, could you forgive him, knowing that he feels no remorse and would do it again if he were sent back in time and given the option to change his mind? Is this still different than if you were there BEFORE he did it, and had to choose whether to stop him?

Yes, if forgiving them means there could be a repeat of the original act or a similar one, that raises the stakes.

In that kind of situation, I'd offer only conditional forgiveness - if they submit to a reduction of agency such that they wouldn't be in a position to commit future atrocities, I could still see forgiving them even if they're unrepentant. So e.g. if I were Dr. Manhattan in the Watchmen example, and could go back and undo the atrocity and also block the possibility of it happening again, it becomes easier to offer forgiveness on a personal level.

But otherwise, it's too big a risk.

Is the Paladin right to merely walk away, and not rescue the child?

I'd say this gets to the grey area, in that it seems conditional on a lot of things. I wouldn't be too quick to judge them personally for their decision, but I could easily see making a different irreconcilable decision myself.

Best if the paladin takes the kid's place.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-05, 11:40 PM

So... essentially, you're against starting from a premise and building a setting to suit it?

I'm not against "I want X to be true, how do I work out things in the setting to make it so?"

But that's not what we've been discussing -- what we've been discussing is "demons are evil because they're demons, and demons are evil".

It really seems like what you're arguing is, "D&D shouldn't have morality rules, because I don't like the notion." If I take what you've outlined here at face value, you object to the notion that a thing called a "demon" might actually be written to be evil, with the intent that the thing be evil. What "should" happen is that the writer call something a "demon," but not actually INTEND for it to be evil, and just have it do stuff that may or may not be evil.

The writer should say "how do I work things out so that demons are evil?" Why is it that demons are driven to do evil things? Why do demons, as intelligent beings, make choices to engage in immoral acts -- why do they have bad intent and do bad things that have bad effects?

The writer should not say "X is A because it's X, and X is A".

If these seems absurd, good; it IS absurd. If somebody includes "demons" in a setting, and says, "I am going to write these things to be evil," it shouldn't be something rejected, even though it's only "because he said so." If somebody invites other writers to contribute to his collaborative setting, and says, "Okay, guys, here are some ground rules," and amongst those rules are, "No non-evil demons, because these things are evil by their nature. The rules of the setting are such that nothing non-evil could ever BE a demon," that shouldn't be immediately scoffed at as some sort of wicked, disingenuous argument.

There is nothing inherently wrong with there being a cosmic force of good and evil, nor with them corresponding in actuality with what we might recognize in the real world as morality. Of course, if you aren't a moral objectivist, you're going to say, "but that's totally arbitrary!" And even if you ARE a moral objectivist, you'll find people who have beliefs about morality that differ from yours, and thus will seem wrong. Whether they ARE wrong or not is beyond the scope of this thread; I am not even arguing that being morally objectivist is wrong (I happen to believe there is an objective morality, and that it is possible-but-difficult to discover).

A being or thing cannot be "evil by nature". If it has no choice, it's acting on compulsion or instinct, and cannot be a moral actor. For demons to be evil on the whole, they must be capable of not-evil, either in the particular actions of demons who normally make evil choices, or in the presence of at least the rare not-evil demon.

"Good and evil as cosmic forces" immediately devolves into a series of ever more sticky moral paradoxes, but that's maybe one more tangent than we need and I'm past awake enough to type out more on the matter.

"Max_Killjoy rejects D&D" is a valid position, but it's not going to gain a lot of traction in a discussion about D&D topics. This is, however, the Roleplaying Games forum, not the D&D 3.5/PF forum, so the only thing holding this to D&D's standards is that the author is discussing liches in that context.

Nobody has disagreed with the premise that, if you change the rules for how you become a lich so that the actions required are not evil, or are justifiable under whatever circumstances you contrive to justify them, you can't have a Good Lich. In fact, if you do so, the answer to the question posed in the OP is simple: The paladin doesn't attack the lich, because the lich isn't evil.

But, if you're using the D&D lich without house rules, then he is, by premise, somebody who has committed "an act of unspeakable evil."

Rejecting the notion of a meta-rule is rejecting any system that isn't custom-built for its precise setting.

In terms of actually discussing whether something is true or not, I agree with your premise that any argument which rejects all refutation as "invalid" because it disagrees with the argument is both flawed and frustrating to even deal with. But you're essentially trying to argue that the premise is false and shouldn't be the premise. Sure. If you reject the premise and declare it a priori false, by your argument it's false.

The reason I framed the question about whether it's POSSIBLE to have an action so evil that nothing could justify it is because I was setting up the way to actually build a logical argument that the premise is inherently flawed: proof by contradiction. Now, we have to use induction and a bit of extrapolation the way I set it up, but if you can, no matter what justification you come up with, also come up with an "unspeakably evil" act that would make the justification fail, then you uphold the premise that "it's just that evil" is viable as a rule. Or meta-rule. If you can't, then you've just proven that it is not a viable meta-rule. At least, you've made a strong case for it (since yes, it's possible somebody else who isn't present could...but stumping all comers is good enough, usually).

Heck, I'll restrict it a bit more: the act must be a one-off thing, and it must be something that would be doable in secret, since liches are not known for world-shaking calamities that draw attention every time they make a phylactery.

Will fill in more here tomorrow, nothing coherent is coming out.

Segev

2017-04-06, 12:09 AM

I'm not against "I want X to be true, how do I work out things in the setting to make it so?"

But that's not what we've been discussing -- what we've been discussing is "demons are evil because they're demons, and demons are evil".I see why you think that, but it's not what we've been discussing. We really have been discussing, "Liches are evil because we want them to be evil. We want anybody who is a lich to be known to be evil because there is an act in the process of becoming a lich which requires them to be truly, disturbingly, horrifically evil. What that act is is not specified, but it has to be evil enough to fit these criteria for the lich to be what we want it to be."

Where "we" is "the monster manual/rules of D&D."

So no, it's not circular. It's the root premise. Arguing, "But no, see, under these circumstances, that evil act might be justified, so the lich might not be evil," is rejecting the premise. Which is acceptable if you acknowledge that that's what you're doing, but is fairly met with a rejoinder that you're house ruling at that point. That you're changing the premise, not disproving anything.

"Vampires are vulnerable to sunlight; therefore they burn up when they go out," cannot be replied to by, "No, see, they should just have skin that sparkles in the sunlight, which is why they avoid it," and have that be a valid counter-argument to the premise. It's a rejection of the premise.

The writer should say "how do I work things out so that demons are evil?" Why is it that demons are driven to do evil things? Why do demons, as intelligent beings, make choices to engage in immoral acts -- why do they have bad intent and do bad things that have bad effects?

The writer should not say "X is A because it's X, and X is A". That is what the writers are doing, except that, given the context of D&D as a game run by DMs at tables, the writers have said, "Demons are evil. What they do that's evil is up to you, but keep in mind that they're evil, so anything you do that makes them non-evil isn't really being a 'demon.'" "Becoming a lich requires an unspeakably evil act. You can define that to be whatever you want for your table, but remember to make it sufficiently evil."

What we've been discussing, insofar as we've discussed it, is what that act might be. And, to an extent, whether there's a proof-by-contradiction that such an arbitrarily sufficiently evil act is even possible.

A being or thing cannot be "evil by nature". If it has no choice, it's acting on compulsion or instinct, and cannot be a moral actor. For demons to be evil on the whole, they must be capable of not-evil, either in the particular actions of demons who normally make evil choices, or in the presence of at least the rare not-evil demon. A valid argument; agency being a requirement of moral action is definitely something I agree with. That said, with "evil as cosmic force," and demons literally being made of it, one can have them have a choice...but have the choice of not being evil really cost them. And give them proclivities.

One can also turn it around: to be a demon, one must be evil. If one is not evil, one is not a demon. Rather than "demon" causing "evil," "evil" becomes a necessary condition for "demon."

"Good and evil as cosmic forces" immediately devolves into a series of ever more sticky moral paradoxes, but that's maybe one more tangent than we need and I'm past awake enough to type out more on the matter. It can, but I think a lot of those "sticky moral paradoxes" are more a result of people being objectively wrong about what good and evil are.

I can construct a "paradox" if I define an "alignment" axis of "wet" and "dry," but then start declaring that water which has red food coloring in it is dry by my "objective" standard. "The water knight must never interact with dry substances, but can't foresake things which make those which touch it wet. He has a paradox because this dry thing makes things wet!"

Admittedly, this is a pretty strong claim, if one reads the implications. And you're right, discussing those implications probably extends beyond the scope of this thread.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-04-06, 12:37 AM

Stealth Marmot

2017-04-06, 07:06 AM

Concerning the OP: I could see a paladin working either way depending on their persona and it would be perfectly valid for their alignment and class.

On the one hand, a paladin could respect the law of the land and believe that in order to bring justice against someone they have to break a law either legally or ethically. Having an evil alignment isn't enough.

On the other hand a paladin could say "The laws of my god are above the laws of mortal man" and start smiting. Preferably with a plan in mind.

Either is a valid interpretation and action. There is more than one way to be Lawful Good.

Grim Portent

2017-04-06, 09:29 AM

If the process of becoming a lich involved a crime on the part of the lich, I'd say the paladin in question should try to arrest them and turn them over to the rightful authority in the land, in a historic style realm this would be the next highest ranking noble, a council of nobles or similar. They would most likely spare their lord unless the crime involved was something nobles generally care about, like the killing of a noble.

There's also the matter that most forms of historic trials that would be used by mundane nobles would probably find the lich not guilty of their crimes. Trial by water or bread is no real issue for an undead monster, and trial by combat will probably be laughable.

If the lich has done no tangible wrong since whatever they did to become a Lich and if they have already faced trial and/or punishment for that, then I don't really think the paladin has moral or ethical cause to do anything about them, but they also probably shouldn't treat them any differently from how they'd treat a person who did what the lich did without the whole 'becoming an undead monster' thing.

A legitimate and reasonable lich king is not really all that morally different from a legitimate and reasonable king who burned a village to the ground and then tortured and murdered it's inhabitants in his youth. If he never faced justice for that, then he's fair game to try and punish, if hes' already been punished and not done anything notably bad since, well a big part of good is trust and forgiveness and that should extend to monsters as well as men.

Mordar

2017-04-06, 11:48 AM

It's kind of a different question as to whether you forgive someone after something that can't be changed, versus whether you stop/support someone in the process of doing something wrong. [SNIP]

That's the tricky thing about coming upon an already existing Lich. They already did the evil act, there's no changing that. So the stakes aren't the same as they were in the moment of that act. Should the paladin prevent the king from becoming a lich is a different question than 'does the paladin need to overthrow the king who already became a lich'. On the other hand, the act of the paladin overthrowing the king in-the-moment does have immediate consequences for people other than the paladin and the lich.

A couple of times I've seen "forgiveness" mentioned...I don't know that it really has a place in the discussion insofar as forgiveness /= someone becoming good. I don't think it washes the forgiven act from any ledger, either. I know this furthers the idea of "cosmic judging", but that's kind of the role we as the players/GM serve, right?

I agree that it becomes a "greater evil" question, along with the potential for "choosing the lesser evil is still evil" questions - that's the fun of it!

- M

Segev

2017-04-06, 11:59 AM

NichG

2017-04-06, 12:10 PM

A couple of times I've seen "forgiveness" mentioned...I don't know that it really has a place in the discussion insofar as forgiveness /= someone becoming good. I don't think it washes the forgiven act from any ledger, either. I know this furthers the idea of "cosmic judging", but that's kind of the role we as the players/GM serve, right?

I agree that it becomes a "greater evil" question, along with the potential for "choosing the lesser evil is still evil" questions - that's the fun of it!

- M

It factors in to whether or not intervention is called for. That is to say, if you have someone who is basically not doing anything (or only doing positive things), then what can create an imperative to interfere with that person's agency or continued existence? Philosophies that have a punitive aspect to them reason that even if someone is not actively doing something bad, the fact that they did something bad in the past may mean that there's an imperative to punish them. The specific justifications vary - the fact that they did it in the past means they might do something like that again, the fact that other people see them getting away with it might encourage them to do such things as well, punishing helps them reform, etc.

So that's where forgiveness comes in. Forgiveness is basically saying 'I won't act against you now because of something you did in the past'. It doesn't mean that they become good, but becoming good isn't a necessary condition for 'I don't really have a good reason to smite this guy'.

Mordar

2017-04-06, 01:13 PM

A big reason I think "forgiveness" comes into it is that it's being used synonymously with, "I feel like I could be persuaded that they're not evil any more." Or, "I feel that they perhaps have made up for the past sin sufficiently that they need not be punished for it at this point." Which is at least in the same neighborhood as "I think he might be Neutral or Good now."

It factors in to whether or not intervention is called for. That is to say, if you have someone who is basically not doing anything (or only doing positive things), then what can create an imperative to interfere with that person's agency or continued existence? Philosophies that have a punitive aspect to them reason that even if someone is not actively doing something bad, the fact that they did something bad in the past may mean that there's an imperative to punish them. The specific justifications vary - the fact that they did it in the past means they might do something like that again, the fact that other people see them getting away with it might encourage them to do such things as well, punishing helps them reform, etc.

So that's where forgiveness comes in. Forgiveness is basically saying 'I won't act against you now because of something you did in the past'. It doesn't mean that they become good, but becoming good isn't a necessary condition for 'I don't really have a good reason to smite this guy'.

I guess my perspective was one of forgiveness being a personal decision by Person B to not hold Person A to account for their action(s), current or past. It doesn't change the nature of Person A or the nature of their act(s) in question, just the manner in which Person B is electing to view the act(s) and the need for accounting. Just because B now views what A did as forgiven/not so bad/atoned for doesn't mean that Person A is now changed from Evil to Neutral or Good. I think my sticking point is the idea of the power of Person B to absolve A.

Now, I very much like/understand the idea of Person B deferring punishment (or even deferring adjudication) from themselves or their organization (church, order, guild, government or what have you) because of either the subsequent good works of Person A or because punishment of A at this time might have a more deleterious outcome for the realm/organization/setting than deferring action.

So if in this context it is about the Paladin in question deferring action (maybe even in perpetuity) on the lich based on the "good ruler/better for the realm/net good" ideas, I certainly understand. I just don't think it necessarily equates to forgiveness.

- M

halfeye

2017-04-06, 01:45 PM

It can, but I think a lot of those "sticky moral paradoxes" are more a result of people being objectively wrong about what good and evil are.

Since you know, please tell us what they are.

Satinavian

2017-04-06, 01:50 PM

If the Lich is not doing anything dangerous or bad, then there is no harm prevented by attacking him.

That leaves punishment as only reason. But ... the paladin is a third party without any involvement with the Lich or his former deeds and without any legal mandate to punish wrongdoers (as the Lich is the ruler). With what kind of authority would the paladin dish out punishment ? It is simply not his buisness.

In most other similar cases one could argue with helping the subjects of the evil ruler which could be considered good. But that justification is lacking in this case.

Segev

2017-04-06, 01:56 PM

Since you know, please tell us what they are.

Ah, bait. It smells so tasty. But I think I'll just nibble around the edges, here:

I make the claim I made because I think those paradoxes are proof by contradiction about the asserted definitions of what is "good" and "evil."

They do not qualify as proof by contradiction that objective morality does not and cannot exist, because they're specific examples of proposed moral codes which are self-contradictory. To prove that objective morality does not exist, one would need to create an all-encompassing model of all possible "objective moral codes" and demonstrate that, no matter what those codes are, there is a paradox, a contradiction, which arises from accepting the code as a premise.

I've written posts on here before - in their own thread, even - on why I think objective morality is something that exists and can be discovered by experiment and study of successful cultures' moral codes. That, however, is beside the point I was making, despite the bait being cast out to try to get me going on this.

What I said and meant, in this thread, is that you can define an objective moral system that is consistent with a general understanding of "good" and "evil" in the real world which does not have paradoxes. When such is constructed in a manner that reveals paradoxes, it is a sign that the puzzle of building such a thing has not been properly solved by this code.

Think of it this way: just because somebody offers up a solution to a Sudoku puzzle that is wrong doesn't mean that the Sudoku puzzle is inherently unsolvable. It only means that person's proposed answer is objectively incorrect.

Segev

2017-04-06, 01:57 PM

Psyren

2017-04-06, 02:10 PM

halfeye

2017-04-06, 02:12 PM

Ah, bait. It smells so tasty. But I think I'll just nibble around the edges, here:

I make the claim I made because I think those paradoxes are proof by contradiction about the asserted definitions of what is "good" and "evil."

They do not qualify as proof by contradiction that objective morality does not and cannot exist, because they're specific examples of proposed moral codes which are self-contradictory. To prove that objective morality does not exist, one would need to create an all-encompassing model of all possible "objective moral codes" and demonstrate that, no matter what those codes are, there is a paradox, a contradiction, which arises from accepting the code as a premise.

I've written posts on here before - in their own thread, even - on why I think objective morality is something that exists and can be discovered by experiment and study of successful cultures' moral codes. That, however, is beside the point I was making, despite the bait being cast out to try to get me going on this.

What I said and meant, in this thread, is that you can define an objective moral system that is consistent with a general understanding of "good" and "evil" in the real world which does not have paradoxes. When such is constructed in a manner that reveals paradoxes, it is a sign that the puzzle of building such a thing has not been properly solved by this code.

Think of it this way: just because somebody offers up a solution to a Sudoku puzzle that is wrong doesn't mean that the Sudoku puzzle is inherently unsolvable. It only means that person's proposed answer is objectively incorrect.

We differ on what they are then.

I believe they are team jerseys, but they are not this team is good, that team is evil, both teams are good, both opponents are evil, it's us (good) versus them (evil).

Keltest

2017-04-06, 02:18 PM

We differ on what they are then.

I believe they are team jerseys, but they are not this team is good, that team is evil, both teams are good, both opponents are evil, it's us (good) versus them (evil).

This is going to happen with pretty much any system, moral or otherwise, that has two opposing factions. Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, Hairy or Bald... Any set of two groups where membership is mutually exclusive with the other group will end up with an us and a them.

halfeye

2017-04-06, 02:25 PM

This is going to happen with pretty much any system, moral or otherwise, that has two opposing factions. Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, Hairy or Bald... Any set of two groups where membership is mutually exclusive with the other group will end up with an us and a them.

Well, maybe, but my point is that good is us from the point of view of both teams.

Mordar

2017-04-06, 02:32 PM

I just want to point out there's a vast gulf of difference between "all liches are evil" and "this particular lich, running a kingdom, should be deposed immediately." Even assuming the paladin in question was powerful enough to do so, the consequences of that sudden upheaval for the kingdom's innocents could easily be just as bad as if not worse than anything the lich was doing.

There certainly is a difference and I think that's the crux of the fun argument. The former is important in setting the stage for the debate that the latter brings up. More specifically, the former being discussed by a large group here is "the process of becoming a lich requires act(s) of such great evil [with a clause: "...that it MAY be impossible to redeem the actor, and..."] that the lich is a fundamentally evil creature."

So the crux of the conversation becomes "Should the Paladin act to remove the evil lich? What should factor into the Paladin's decision to act or defer action?" "Is the lich still evil" is maybe one of the more compelling factors to consider, as is "what are the ramifications for the kingdom if the lich is deposed?".

- M

Satinavian

2017-04-06, 02:32 PM

Technically, the paladin's legal mandate could come from the Higher Power he serves.
How ?

If he serves a god that doesn't make him a legal authority, even less one that should act as accuser, judge and jury. And even if we forget this bit, by far most good gods are not actually concerned with travelling the land and searching and punishing evildoers, they are far more likely concerned with helping people or protecting the innocent. The stuff paladins actually should do instead.

And if he doesn't serf a god, it is even worse. It is not a good act to travel the land dishing out punishment/vengeance on behalf of victoms who show no interest in punishment. And it is also no mandate.

Segev

2017-04-06, 02:39 PM

Well, maybe, but my point is that good is us from the point of view of both teams.

Moral relativism essentially is amorality. If you believe that all moral systems are equally valid, then you cannot believe any of them to be valid. They all must inherently be wrong.

Now, you absolutely can have one side be objectively wrong about their morality.

But a better way to deal with the D&D Good/Evil paradigm and their mutual perspectives is that the Evil side in D&D says, "Pfh, yeah, we're Evil. Being Good," they say with a sneer, "means being weak, foolish, and squandering your efforts on those who are of no use to you. The unworthy parasites."

Team Evil doesn't mind being called Evil because they don't see it as a negative thing.

But that doesn't make arbitrarily assigning traits to Evil behavior which render the system as having a paradox - which makes it so that a person we would all agree is a generally good man feels he's morally obligated to choose Evil - isn't an objectively incorrect assignment.

"Objective" doesn't mean "arbitrary." If you decide that your "objectively good" side includes a rule that anything Notmodeus (who is Not Asmodeus) says is Good and Right, and Notmodeus is capable of saying things like, "Kill all the human babies under the age of 2 and sacrifice them to my glory," your definition of "objectively good" is objectively WRONG.

Segev

2017-04-06, 02:40 PM

How ?

If he serves a god that doesn't make him a legal authority, even less one that should act as accuser, judge and jury.

Says who?

No, really. Where do you think "legal authority" comes from?

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-06, 02:52 PM

Says who?

No, really. Where do you think "legal authority" comes from?

Not from gods.

Segev

2017-04-06, 03:03 PM

Not from gods.

As much from gods as from any other sapient source.

"Legal authority" is a construct. The real source of a Paladin's authority is his code. What does it authorize him to do?

And yes, this does mean you have to be careful in defining the code such that it is an Orderly code, and not a thinly-disguised Chaotic "code" that amounts to no code at all save your whim. There IS a difference; elaborating on it seems a bit beyond the scope of this thread, though.

Zanos

2017-04-06, 03:08 PM

A being or thing cannot be "evil by nature". If it has no choice, it's acting on compulsion or instinct, and cannot be a moral actor. For demons to be evil on the whole, they must be capable of not-evil, either in the particular actions of demons who normally make evil choices, or in the presence of at least the rare not-evil demon.
Maybe according to certain schools of philosophy, but if I make an AI that immediately throws out all Good options in its neural net and therefore cannot choose to be Good, I'm not going to snicker at the Paladin and tell him his Smite Evil doesn't work when he tries to destroy the genocide AI.

Also, and I know this is in the generic RP forum, in most versions of D&D paladins/clerics have to receive atonement spells for acts they commit even when mentally controlled, which means that Good and Evil in most editions of D&D do not require an ability to choose.

Keltest

2017-04-06, 03:24 PM

Not from gods.

Better than strange women lying in ponds and distributing swords.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-06, 03:29 PM

Maybe according to certain schools of philosophy, but if I make an AI that immediately throws out all Good options in its neural net and therefore cannot choose to be Good, I'm not going to snicker at the Paladin and tell him his Smite Evil doesn't work when he tries to destroy the genocide AI.

The Paladin, having been mysteriously transported to an SF setting, is likely wondering why none of his magic works now anyway.

As for the AI itself, if it is preprogrammed such that it can only make malicious choices and act on them, then it's a threat regardless of the moral question, and just a machine since it has no free will. Smash the thing without hesitation and don't look back.

Also, and I know this is in the generic RP forum, in most versions of D&D paladins/clerics have to receive atonement spells for acts they commit even when mentally controlled, which means that Good and Evil in most editions of D&D do not require an ability to choose.

Yes. I recall pointing out that D&D's "morality" is broken in multiple ways, at least a few times previously.

And here you have offered up a remarkable example of just how broken it is.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-06, 03:33 PM

As much from gods as from any other sapient source.

"Legal authority" is a construct. The real source of a Paladin's authority is his code. What does it authorize him to do?

And yes, this does mean you have to be careful in defining the code such that it is an Orderly code, and not a thinly-disguised Chaotic "code" that amounts to no code at all save your whim. There IS a difference; elaborating on it seems a bit beyond the scope of this thread, though.

Legitimate legal authority can only originate from the consent of the governed.

Without that, the Lich, the Paladin, random fictional dukes and depots, etc, are all in the same boat -- they hold authority via force, the threat of force, and the cooperation of lackeys.

Segev

2017-04-06, 03:33 PM

Yes. I recall pointing out that D&D's "morality" is broken in multiple ways, at least a few times previously.

And here you have offered up a remarkable example of just how broken it is.

No, you've pointed out how you don't like it, and how you can misrepresent it to MAKE it not work. I do wish you'd separate your preferences from analysis of objective fact, Max; you're insightful when you do that. When you muddle your preferences in to try to claim your preferences make something objectively good or bad, and worse claim that your dislike of something means it's fundamentally flawed, turns your arguments sour and illogical and makes what would otherwise be engaging discussion a morass of irritation.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-06, 03:41 PM

No, you've pointed out how you don't like it, and how you can misrepresent it to MAKE it not work. I do wish you'd separate your preferences from analysis of objective fact, Max; you're insightful when you do that. When you muddle your preferences in to try to claim your preferences make something objectively good or bad, and worse claim that your dislike of something means it's fundamentally flawed, turns your arguments sour and illogical and makes what would otherwise be engaging discussion a morass of irritation.

When someone can be held morally responsible and "ping evil" for what someone else magically forced them to do -- rather than the culpability being firmly and completely placed on the one compelling them -- the moral system is broken.

When someone can "ping evil" simply because they "got some evil on them", the moral system is broken.

Keltest

2017-04-06, 03:47 PM

When someone can be held morally responsible and "ping evil" for what someone else magically forced them to do -- rather than the culpability being firmly and completely placed on the one compelling them -- the moral system is broken.

When someone can "ping evil" simply because they "got some evil on them", the moral system is broken.

needing an atonement spell is not the same thing as changing alignment, and people do not "ping evil" because they were mind controlled into doing an evil deed.

This isn't the system broken, this is just a lack of understanding on your part.

Zanos

2017-04-06, 03:58 PM

When someone can be held morally responsible and "ping evil" for what someone else magically forced them to do -- rather than the culpability being firmly and completely placed on the one compelling them -- the moral system is broken.

When someone can "ping evil" simply because they "got some evil on them", the moral system is broken.
Because you're thinking of it as just a moral system, when it's actually a system of planar cosmology and (meta)physical construction.

You can literally mortar a building with raw Evil or shovel it into your magical gastank as fuel, it's not a system that represents someone as moral or immoral, it's a system that declares where their actions have placed them in an eternal cosmic war.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-06, 04:02 PM

needing an atonement spell is not the same thing as changing alignment, and people do not "ping evil" because they were mind controlled into doing an evil deed.

This isn't the system broken, this is just a lack of understanding on your part.

If it's a misunderstanding, it's not mine:

Also, and I know this is in the generic RP forum, in most versions of D&D paladins/clerics have to receive atonement spells for acts they commit even when mentally controlled, which means that Good and Evil in most editions of D&D do not require an ability to choose.

Why would a person need to atone if the capitalized "cosmic forces" of "Good" and "Evil" aren't holding them morally responsible for what they did while mind-controlled?

And I know for a fact that I've read about ways that good-aligned characters can end up "pinging evil" to the Detect spells, through no fault of their own, because they basically got some evil on them.

Because you're thinking of it as just a moral system, when it's actually a system of planar cosmology and (meta)physical construction.

Yes. That's one of the broken parts. It's mixing morality with other unrelated stuff, stuff that amounts to Orange Tribe vs Blue Tribe.

Cazero

2017-04-06, 04:04 PM

Because you're thinking of it as just a moral system, when it's actually a system of planar cosmology and (meta)physical construction.

You can literally mortar a building with raw Evil or shovel it into your magical gastank as fuel, it's not a system that represents someone as moral or immoral, it's a system that declares where their actions have placed them in an eternal cosmic war.

Well maybe they shouldn't have called their alignements "Good" and "Evil" if they really meant "Blue" and "Orange", or "Energy" and "Mass", or "Proton" and "Neutron", or any two others arbitrary things that aren't related in any way to morality the way Good and Evil explicitly are.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-04-06, 04:12 PM

It wasn't really designed for Good vs Evil. It was designed for Law vs Chaos, which was cooler imo.

Zanos

2017-04-06, 04:12 PM

Yes. That's one of the broken parts. It's mixing morality with other unrelated stuff, stuff that amounts to Orange Tribe vs Blue Tribe.
You're trying to observe an objective judgement system from a subjective view. Of course it's going to look broken. I personally think it's a pretty interesting setting mechanic, and it makes alignment discussions much easier to resolve deterministically, which is important when a game contains mechanical effects that are based on alignment.

Well maybe they shouldn't have called their alignements "Good" and "Evil" if they really meant "Blue" and "Orange", or "Energy" and "Mass", or "Proton" and "Neutron", or any two others arbitrary things that aren't related in any way to morality the way Good and Evil explicitly are.
That's a fair criticism, but I don't think it's as bad as Blue vs Orange. The scenarios where Good and Evil are out of line with modern day average joe definitions of them are corner cases rather than ubiquitous. Good is at least mostly aligned with helping people, and Evil is at least mostly aligned with hurting them.

Segev

2017-04-06, 04:35 PM

Why do you need an atonement when you were compelled against your will to perform Evil acts in order to regain your "only for the pure and holy" powers?

Why do you need to undergo quarantine and cleansing rituals when you were compelled against your will to travel through a plague-ridden zone before you can regain your "do surgery on patients not infected with the plague" pass?

Same answer.

Against your will, you have been tainted.

No, you're not Evil, now. But you're not Paladin Pure, either.

It goes back to the reason atonement is needed if you shift alignments and want to be wholly converted to the new one: it absolves you of your past deeds that contravened the alignment. It makes you no longer culpable for them. This is why it only works on those who truly have forsaken the old alignment.

halfeye

2017-04-06, 04:35 PM

Moral relativism essentially is amorality.

No it isn't.

If you believe that all moral systems are equally valid, then you cannot believe any of them to be valid. They all must inherently be wrong.

No, it's like frames of reference in physical relativity. If they are coherent then you can compare them.

Now, you absolutely can have one side be objectively wrong about their morality.

Two wrongs don't make a right, one being wrong doesn't make the other necessarily correct.

But a better way to deal with the D&D Good/Evil paradigm and their mutual perspectives is that the Evil side in D&D says, "Pfh, yeah, we're Evil. Being Good," they say with a sneer, "means being weak, foolish, and squandering your efforts on those who are of no use to you. The unworthy parasites."

Team Evil doesn't mind being called Evil because they don't see it as a negative thing.

In fiction there's a lot of that, it doesn't work so well in the real world.

But that doesn't make arbitrarily assigning traits to Evil behavior which render the system as having a paradox - which makes it so that a person we would all agree is a generally good man feels he's morally obligated to choose Evil - isn't an objectively incorrect assignment.

"Objective" doesn't mean "arbitrary." If you decide that your "objectively good" side includes a rule that anything Notmodeus (who is Not Asmodeus) says is Good and Right, and Notmodeus is capable of saying things like, "Kill all the human babies under the age of 2 and sacrifice them to my glory," your definition of "objectively good" is objectively WRONG.

Wrong by the code I'd go by yes, but I'm saying that there is nothing in the real world to make my code, which is probably similar to your code, universal.

Lion eats zebra, from the lion's POV that's good, from the zebra's it's bad, from mine the lion is an obligate carnivore, it's necessary for the lion, but overall it's neutral for me.

Segev

2017-04-06, 04:41 PM

I am going to draw the line at actually debating moral systems in this thread. We can start another one if people want to do that.

If you wish to conclude from my unwillingness to derail this thread with that debate that I am somehow conceding a point, so be it. I'm not, but you're free to conclude that.

Godlings, we're so far off from the OP's topic that I'm not sure where to pull us back onto it. What does this have to do with whether a paladin should off the lich king or not, again?

halfeye

2017-04-06, 04:47 PM

I am going to draw the line at actually debating moral systems in this thread. We can start another one if people want to do that.

I would like that, however I don't know which forum here would be appropriate, if any.

Segev

2017-04-06, 04:48 PM

I would like that, however I don't know which forum here would be appropriate, if any.

I think this is an appropriate subforum; it just takes a different thread. And probably couching it in terms of developing the moral systems for RP purposes. Otherwise it might fall into general discussion?

Mordar

2017-04-06, 04:56 PM

In fiction there's a lot of that, it doesn't work so well in the real world.

While there are certainly some groups that the majority see as Evil that see themselves as Good, I believe that, say, the mafia or cartels have an us-against-them mentality where they view themselves as bad guys against the [insert derogatory terms here] do-gooders. Of course, there's probably an us-against-them where they view the them as even worse bad guys.

YMMV.

Psyren

2017-04-06, 05:04 PM

I think we can all at least agree that D&D alignment is very flawed and far from a perfect system, if such a thing even exists. Yes? Let's pull back from that rabbit hole and focus on the thread topic.

There certainly is a difference and I think that's the crux of the fun argument. The former is important in setting the stage for the debate that the latter brings up. More specifically, the former being discussed by a large group here is "the process of becoming a lich requires act(s) of such great evil [with a clause: "...that it MAY be impossible to redeem the actor, and..."] that the lich is a fundamentally evil creature."

So the crux of the conversation becomes "Should the Paladin act to remove the evil lich? What should factor into the Paladin's decision to act or defer action?" "Is the lich still evil" is maybe one of the more compelling factors to consider, as is "what are the ramifications for the kingdom if the lich is deposed?".

- M

The most important considerations for the paladin are:

1) Can I do something?
2) What happens if I do something?
3) What happens if I do nothing?

All of those obviously depend on the paladin's own power, the lich itself, its people, and its neighbors.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-06, 05:15 PM

You're trying to observe an objective judgement system from a subjective view.

You have that backwards.

Or at the very least, calling the D&D system "objective" just isn't accurate, at all.

ImNotTrevor

2017-04-06, 06:22 PM

You have that backwards.

Or at the very least, calling the D&D system "objective" just isn't accurate, at all.

I mean... in-universe, the alignment system is definitionally Objective. Your opinion about Good and Evil don't mean jack squat to where you sit on the spectrum. It doesn't matter if you think throwing a child off a building is Good. It's an Evil act. Too bad. Please try again later. Just like how your opinion on gravity doesn't mean jack to how heavy you are or if you can fly.

For us, the players, no. Because it's an arbitrary system made up by humans for a "go in dungeons and kill things with made-up elves" game. But for the characters in the fictional universe of D&D games using alignments as written, they're Objective. Definitionally, unless you're using your own definition, at which point this argument is a waste of my time since I don't know your definition or want to spend the energy to find out.

So.... yeah. Not sure what your line of argument is, here, other than the "the rules we made up by real people" which would be, ironically, a meta-argument.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-06, 07:49 PM

I mean... in-universe, the alignment system is definitionally Objective. Your opinion about Good and Evil don't mean jack squat to where you sit on the spectrum. It doesn't matter if you think throwing a child off a building is Good. It's an Evil act. Too bad. Please try again later. Just like how your opinion on gravity doesn't mean jack to how heavy you are or if you can fly.

For us, the players, no. Because it's an arbitrary system made up by humans for a "go in dungeons and kill things with made-up elves" game. But for the characters in the fictional universe of D&D games using alignments as written, they're Objective. Definitionally, unless you're using your own definition, at which point this argument is a waste of my time since I don't know your definition or want to spend the energy to find out.

As detailed ad nauseum previously/elsewhere, it's trivially easy to find in-universe gaps between the alignment system and actual morality -- or between any set of simple-minded absolutes and actual morality. That is, it's trivially easy to find situations in which the "cosmic standard" would assert that an action is evil, but it's clearly not by any functional moral standard. Situations where all the possible actions, including doing nothing, are not bright and shiny and comfortable and nice, but rather end up causing suffering/loss/death, and the character is left with nothing better than the least bad option.

So.... yeah. Not sure what your line of argument is, here, other than the "the rules we made up by real people" which would be, ironically, a meta-argument.

My "line of argument" is that someone asserted that alignment is an objective moral system, and that I disagree, for a host of reasons that shouldn't need reiterating by now.

Zanos

2017-04-06, 09:04 PM

ImNotTrevor

2017-04-06, 10:18 PM

As detailed ad nauseum previously/elsewhere, it's trivially easy to find in-universe gaps between the alignment system and actual morality -- or between any set of simple-minded absolutes and actual morality. That is, it's trivially easy to find situations in which the "cosmic standard" would assert that an action is evil, but it's clearly not by any functional moral standard. Situations where all the possible actions, including doing nothing, are not bright and shiny and comfortable and nice, but rather end up causing suffering/loss/death, and the character is left with nothing better than the least bad option.

What you're missing is that in-universe, alignment IS morality. The alignment system? That's the objective moral code of Good and Evil. That is doesn't map to your sensibilities or current morality models in the real world is 100% irrelevant.

My "line of argument" is that someone asserted that alignment is an objective moral system, and that I disagree, for a host of reasons that shouldn't need reiterating by now.

You're definitionally wrong, but you're free to disagree. In the end, your opinions of morality mean jack diddly in the D&D-verse, hence why it's objective and not subjective.

Belac93

2017-04-06, 10:52 PM

-Looks at thread title-

"Ooh, this looks like it'll be a really neat discussion!"

-Sees references to paladins and (by extension) lawful good-

"Hah. Nope! I'm out!"

In all seriousness (I'll probably never be back on this thread, just wanted to share my opinion), 'fairly enough' is generally better than most human rulers. So, unless 97% of nobles in your campaign world are evil, I would say that the paladin should have no problems.

Also, I would like to point out that the thread title says nothing about the alignment of the lich. This discussion would be made a lot happier if we removed alignment entirely, and instead put 'harsh but fair undead ruler in the same city as law-following goody-goody with a sword, what happens?'

If the paladin is smart at all, they'll leave well enough alone, or work with the lich, try and manipulate them to be nicer and fairer people. If the paladin is stupid or hasn't heard about the 'fair enough' bit, they are going to go after the lich, and get their asses kicked, because liches are CR 19 thousand year old mages, and this one happens to own a city.

Keltest

2017-04-06, 10:57 PM

Satinavian

2017-04-07, 04:48 AM

As much from gods as from any other sapient source.

"Legal authority" is a construct. Usually communities. Cultures, peoples. There might be lawmakers like kings if that is part of culture, there might be old written laws or oral traditions if the community thinks this is the way to go. And yes, gods might give rules and if a culture venerates those gods those rules might become laws.

But we have a lich already established as legitimate ruler which means whatever is the law of the region or the accepted custom does agree with that.

Even if not, the authority to actually punish bad rulers for crimes would probably lie with noble assemblies/ highest priests /high courts, not with some foreign paladin. (And it doesn't get better with a not foreign paladin who is actually subject to the lich and grew up in the legal system them allows the lich to rule)

The real source of a Paladin's authority is his code. What does it authorize him to do?Nothing at all.

The Paladin's Code is a set of rules the paladin has to abide. It might come from an order, it might be something the paladin took on himself. But it does not give the paladin any extra rights nor the authority to punish crimes.

I really don't get where people pull the idea from that a paladin has more legal authority than a fighter or a rogue. There is only one base class in the core rules where people could argue that it comes with some extra rights and that is the noble. And even that is pretty much left open.

eru001

2017-04-07, 07:12 AM

I think we can all at least agree that D&D alignment is very flawed and far from a perfect system, if such a thing even exists. Yes? Let's pull back from that rabbit hole and focus on the thread topic.

The most important considerations for the paladin are:

1) Can I do something?
2) What happens if I do something?
3) What happens if I do nothing?

All of those obviously depend on the paladin's own power, the lich itself, its people, and its neighbors.

a fair set of parameters, I would rephrase as two questions though

1) Is it within my power to do anything about it?
2) Would my becoming involved aid more innocents than it would harm?

If the answer to both questions is yes. Then the paladin should become involved. If the answer to either or both is no, then the paladin should go find somewhere else to employ his or her abilities.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-07, 09:16 AM

What you're missing is that in-universe, alignment IS morality. The alignment system? That's the objective moral code of Good and Evil. That is doesn't map to your sensibilities or current morality models in the real world is 100% irrelevant.

So, "morality by fiat".

This is no different from the notion that a deity can be "good be definition". "Glob can't do bad things, Glob is by definition good, so anything Glob does, even ordering the slaughter of children and the burning of cities, or the seizure of women from other tribes for his followers to rape, even burning the entire world innocent and guilty alike... is good! Because Glob is good!"

Nothing can be "good by definition." The "goodness" or "evilness" of anything is revealed by its intentions, actions, and outcomes -- not by definitions, and not by adherence to simplistic codes.

"Cosmic forces" or "the universe" making some sort of assertion regarding morality, is no more automatically correct, than any other "actor". Rather, that assertion would be just as subject to question as any other moral assertion.

As discussed repeatedly, it's trivially easy to find examples of where the notion of alignment as an objective moral code falls apart. Any absolutist code of morality is going to run face-first into a brick wall of situations it can't handle, and start labeling people who are stuck doing the least bad thing they can "evil". For example, for a code that says "never lie" and "never kill an innocent", and calls both acts "evil", it's trivially easy to construct a situation where the adherent of that code needs to choose between at the very least deliberate omission of truth, or allowing an innocent to be killed through inaction.

Absolute, simplistic, vapid moral standards work in fiction, where the author can fastidiously avoid complex situations and moral dilemmas. In living worlds -- real, game, whatever -- where there's no author controlling everything, it doesn't take long for the lie to be exposed.

Vitruviansquid

2017-04-07, 09:39 AM

Why would anyone expose this lie when they've all agreed to abide by it when they sat down to play D&D?

Seems obvious the alignment system doesn't exist for you to break it, it exists for you to try to not break it.

Segev

2017-04-07, 09:42 AM

Usually communities. Cultures, peoples. There might be lawmakers like kings if that is part of culture, there might be old written laws or oral traditions if the community thinks this is the way to go. And yes, gods might give rules and if a culture venerates those gods those rules might become laws.

But we have a lich already established as legitimate ruler which means whatever is the law of the region or the accepted custom does agree with that. Even "legitimate ruler" is an interesting construct. What makes him "legitimate?"

In reality, it's that people accept that he is.

Let's examine the USA. By near-unanimous consent, citizens of the USA agree that authority extends from the Constitution. Thus, anything legitimate must eventually route back to the Constitution for its authority. (Not touching modern controversies over what branches overstep what bounds with this. But in theory, that's where all legitimate national governmental authority comes from.)

In England, they have... fuzzier rules. There's much, much more tradition piled on top of precedent, and while a lot extends from the Magna Carta, even that theoretically derives its authority from the fact that a King once signed it and invested some of his powers into it, binding future Kings to its strictures. In theory, going by the spoken rules, the Queen of England could declare Parliament disbanded whenever she wants; in practice, she waits for Parliament to ask her to do so so they can hold a new election. In theory, Parliament is a deliberative and advisory body with some specific powers, but which only passes laws as "suggestions" to the Queen; she isn't just the US President who signs them - she's the technical originator of the legislation as she decrees it so.

In theory, if the Queen chose, she could pass laws without Parliament first writing them. She could even disband Parliament and not allow them to reform. (The Magna Carta has some strong words about such practices, though, and guarantees Lords certain rights in such events.)

In practice, if the Queen exercised these "legitimate" authorities, however, she would be shouted down and seen as acting illegitimately...because the weight of precedent in English law is such that those would not be considered legitimate actions for the monarch to take.

If a municipality in the US were to declare itself an independent state, the "legitimate" authority would be whatever they set up. Except that nobody outside that state would recognize that legitimacy. If an FBI agent acted to arrest people breaking Federal law in that rogue "city-state," he would be acting with legal authority according to the laws to which he subscribes, even though he'd be violating the laws of that city-state (which doesn't recognize his authority at all).

Clashes of authority and legitimate representation thereof between States and Church were a big deal in medieval Europe; the Anglican split from the Catholic Church was a result of such a clash. You can bet that, at the time Henry VIII did it, the Pope didn't recognize it as a legitimate act. But Britain's nobility (for the most part) did - if only because they recognized the legitimate authority of Henry's much closer armies over that of the Pope's much further away ones. Others, instead, recognized the Pope's divine authority over Henry's; obviously, there was strife over this action.

"Legitimate" authority and legal right are interesting things because they really do descend from something that is, ultimately, a construct.

I mean, power is power, of course. Even Chaotic people recognize that Tyrant Tim can boss them around because he can and will kill them if they don't do what he says. But Tyrant Tim exerting that power in Benevolent Bill's kingdom would be seen as "illegitimate" by those concerned with such things, even if he's only stopped when Bill uses his "legitimate" authority to direct greater power than Tim's to thwarting Tim's illegitimate exercise of power.

Batman could lock up his rogues in a prison of his own devising. This would be termed "false imprisonment" and thus illegitimate by American law. But if it weren't Batman, but instead Sir Bruce of the Order of the Bat, who recognized an ancient authority and duty passed down to him, he would consider his actions legitimate, because he believes his code and authority supercedes that of this newfangled "constitution."

If a Judge exercises his right of Judicial Review to declare taxes unconstitutional, many would say he's acting without legitimate authority (I mean, the 16th amendment says income taxes are a thing), but you'd still have debate over the legitimacy of Congress passing and the IRS enforcing tax law while the Judge has said "no." Who's authority really trumps? The Judge claims the Constitution lets him interpret it and that his interpretation is final (especially if he's the Supreme Court); others claim his power to "interpret" the Constitution doesn't trump their own reading of it that says he's acting in direct violation of it.

"Legitimate legal authority" stems from whatever those considering it subscribe to as the source of their code.

Heck, here on the boards we consider the RAW to be the primary source of legitimate rules authority...except when a DM steps in for his table and says otherwise. What makes the DM's authority "legitimate" is that his table agrees he's the DM. When they stop agreeing, they quit his game and either stop playing or find a new DM.

Even if not, the authority to actually punish bad rulers for crimes would probably lie with noble assemblies/ highest priests /high courts, not with some foreign paladin. (And it doesn't get better with a not foreign paladin who is actually subject to the lich and grew up in the legal system them allows the lich to rule)What if the paladin is a member of the order that is the highest court? In Patrick Rothfuss's novel series, the Kingkiller Chronicles, there was once an order of knights who were considered above the law because they were supposedly so trusted that their judgments were wise that they could always be acting in the best interests of the land and people.

Then a King declared them criminals and ordered them exterminated, terminating their authority.

In theory, if they'd won the fight with him, they would have kept their "above the law" status, because by the law the King had no right to rescind their status. But his forces won, seized their properties, and drove them into hiding (where they weren't exterminated), and so his decree carried legitimacy.

In the end, the legitimacy is rooted in people's belief in it. People now subscribe to the notion that the king could rescind that status. If he'd failed and been executed by these knights "for the good of the kingdom," the same people probably would believe in the legitimacy of the "above the law" status of these knights.

I really don't get where people pull the idea from that a paladin has more legal authority than a fighter or a rogue. There is only one base class in the core rules where people could argue that it comes with some extra rights and that is the noble. And even that is pretty much left open.
He doesn't. If a fighter or rogue subscribes to a code that extends them authorities that local legal systems deny, the fighter or rogue still could act on them in a Lawful fashion.

This does get sticky, but as long as the character really is adhering to a set code that provides external authority governing his actions, he can be Lawful even if he is utterly rejecting the "law of the land" where he happens to be.

Consider it thusly: Paladin Paul from the Empire of Enlightenment has been granted authority as an enforcer of Emperor Edward's will, in the name of the Enlightened Gods that the Empire worships. They're genuinely an LG empire.

Despot Dirk of the People's Free and Friendly Democratic Republican Lands of Liberty is a CE tyrant who barely gives a nod to "laws" that govern his power; he really is just a semi-feudal lord who manages a system of bribery and favoritism and personal loyalty based on fear and greed to keep himself in power. He can do anything because nobody can or will stop him. But he's the legitimate ruler of the PFFDRLL, in that everybody recognizes him as such and obeys his will.

The Emperor, with the blessing of the enlightened gods, declares Dirk to be a criminal and his nation to be properly a part of the Empire. He sends Paul to arrest this criminal overlord who has too long tormented those poor people.

Paul is acting with what he considers legitimate authority when he goes into the PFFDRLL and starts working to overthrow, capture, or kill Dirk. The people of the PFFDRLL don't consider Emperor Edward, the enlightened gods, nor the Empire as legitimate sources of authority, so they don't think Paul is acting with legitimacy at all.

Who's right? Both and neither, really. "Legitimate" authority is what you make of it. If you subscribe to the system that gives it legitimacy, it's legitimate. If not, it's illegitimate.

Milo v3

2017-04-07, 09:56 AM

So, "morality by fiat".
Based on how you're using that term, there is no way any system of objective morality could be anything but morality by fiat.

Also... you keep saying by fiat as if we aren't discussing tabletop roleplaying games. Basically Everything is in a way made by fiat, because it's ridiculous to try to simulate the real world in any accurate way through such an imprecise medium, let alone try to then have that be fun. Abstractions exist, RPG's are made of fiat.

Knaight

2017-04-07, 10:01 AM

Consider it thusly: Paladin Paul from the Empire of Enlightenment has been granted authority as an enforcer of Emperor Edward's will, in the name of the Enlightened Gods that the Empire worships. They're genuinely an LG empire.

Despot Dirk of the People's Free and Friendly Democratic Republican Lands of Liberty is a CE tyrant who barely gives a nod to "laws" that govern his power; he really is just a semi-feudal lord who manages a system of bribery and favoritism and personal loyalty based on fear and greed to keep himself in power. He can do anything because nobody can or will stop him. But he's the legitimate ruler of the PFFDRLL, in that everybody recognizes him as such and obeys his will.

The Emperor, with the blessing of the enlightened gods, declares Dirk to be a criminal and his nation to be properly a part of the Empire. He sends Paul to arrest this criminal overlord who has too long tormented those poor people.

Paul is acting with what he considers legitimate authority when he goes into the PFFDRLL and starts working to overthrow, capture, or kill Dirk. The people of the PFFDRLL don't consider Emperor Edward, the enlightened gods, nor the Empire as legitimate sources of authority, so they don't think Paul is acting with legitimacy at all.

Who's right? Both and neither, really. "Legitimate" authority is what you make of it. If you subscribe to the system that gives it legitimacy, it's legitimate. If not, it's illegitimate.

Similarly, when Despot Dirk of the PFFDRLL decides to send someone to deal with the Emperor for being a warmongering hereditary tyrant (which he can do, because Despot Dirk at least fakes elections) who engaged in an unprovoked attack on PFFDRLL, that is also a completely legitimate action for the assassin in PFFDRLL. It's not going to come across that way to Emperor Edward, to Assassin Abigail's detriment.

Segev

2017-04-07, 10:24 AM

Based on how you're using that term, there is no way any system of objective morality could be anything but morality by fiat.

Also... you keep saying by fiat as if we aren't discussing tabletop roleplaying games. Basically Everything is in a way made by fiat, because it's ridiculous to try to simulate the real world in any accurate way through such an imprecise medium, let alone try to then have that be fun. Abstractions exist, RPG's are made of fiat.

While I agree with your sentiment, if objective morality is not inherently self-contradictory, it is possible for it to exist independent of fiat. It would exist in the same way that gravity exists, or that taking proper care of your car and its maintenance will make it last longer than if you never change its oil. In a non-fiat-designed setting (i.e., non-fictional), you could derive moral rules from simply how it works.

In a fictional setting, there will always, however, be elements of fiat. Why does alomancy work on Scadrial? Because Brandon Sanderson wrote the setting to work that way. Why does the One Power have different sources for men and women in the Wheel of Time? Because Robert Jordan wrote it to work that way.

That said, you can tell if the writer of the setting has done a good job with his objective morality (or any other rules he establishes) by examining them for paradoxes. If the rules self-contradict, then they are badly designed. Given the nature of Evil and Good as perceived and defined in real-world English, if you've designed your "objective Good" such that pursuing it makes people miserable and ruins lives, or your "objective Evil" such that embracing it generally makes everybody happier and better off, you've fiat-designed things which don't fit the definitions. You really have just made them "team jerseys."

They can be matched to real-world expectations of the definitions of those words without having to resort to moral relativism. It just takes some effort and some willingness to examine base principles in nuanced situations.

NichG

2017-04-07, 10:36 AM

Segev

2017-04-07, 10:54 AM

There are different kinds of fiat though. You can declare by fiat, for example, 'in this fictional world, there is a cow on this street corner' and that's no big deal. But if you were to declare by fiat 'in this fictional world, pi=3, 1+2 = 7, and you the Fourier transform just doesn't work' ... well, you can declare it, but its unlikely that anyone would really be able to coherently abide by it. The further from Newtonian physics and other easily-observable things you get, the more of this you can get away with. Declaring in a fictional setting that FTL works because Newtonian physics applies at all scales and relativity does not will work just fine for the vast majority of stories. The consequences where this would actually become problematic are hard to reach and adjust for, and the model actually matches with our normal expectations better than reality would.

In discussions of D&D morality, there's one element that can be freely declared by fiat, which is how the cosmos keeps score in response to people's actions and reports on that (in the form of Detect X spells, class feature access, etc). The other thing which you can't really fiat is the way in which players and characters apply their own moral reasoning. Saying 'because the cosmos defines X as Good and Y is Evil, you believe that X is something you should do and Y is something you shouldn't do (if you're Good; or vice versa if you're Evil)' is going to run the risk of creating dissonance. And you can't just rule away players experiencing dissonance.Yeah, this is pretty true. The other risk you run is when your fiat declarations that "X is Good" or "Y is Evil" can be shown to have consequences which are undesirable on a grand scale to a real-world good-hearted person.

Classic examples of this sort tend to be meant to create anti-racism aesops, or to make a "too much Good is a bad thing" claim by conflating it with racism or sexism other (oft greater) evils that have been fiat-declared "good."

"The demons are actually the good guys because they're not as racist and hateful as the angels" is overdone to the point of nausea by now. But it's often the form that the "fiat objective morality auto-fails" examples take.

Zanos

2017-04-07, 11:10 AM

As discussed repeatedly, it's trivially easy to find examples of where the notion of alignment as an objective moral code falls apart. Any absolutist code of morality is going to run face-first into a brick wall of situations it can't handle, and start labeling people who are stuck doing the least bad thing they can "evil". For example, for a code that says "never lie" and "never kill an innocent", and calls both acts "evil", it's trivially easy to construct a situation where the adherent of that code needs to choose between at the very least deliberate omission of truth, or allowing an innocent to be killed through inaction.
Lying is Chaotic, not Evil. And that code isn't violated, considering your example doesn't present "never allow an innocent to come to harm through inaction", it says "never kill an innocent." I don't lie and I don't help anyone. Code preserved. I agree with you in the sense that any code of morals that's followed absolutely to the letter at all times regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances is going to seem a little strange unless it's very particularly worded. But that doesn't make them broken, it just makes the dedicated adherents seem a tad crazy. If we do revise the code to be what you intended, where lying would save lives and your code says you should both preserve lives and not lie, you can do both, it just probably won't result in the best outcome from an outside perspective. But that's why codes exist. "Do the most practical thing in every situation" isn't a code, and if codes of moral standard are only followed when convenient they really don't have any purpose. If the code values innocent lives over its adherents lying, it should have a hierarchy of values. If those things are weighed equally the code is still internally consistent, it, again, just seems bizarre to others even if it makes perfect sense.

So it doesn't fall apart, you just don't agree with the outcomes it produces. If some innocent child was turned into plane destroying WMD by some Evil powers and you kill the child to stop it, that's an Evil action. Murdering innocents is always Evil, even if under your view it was the "least bad thing." Being Good all the time is hard, and being Good requires that you find an alternative that isn't Evil at all. It means that you don't toss away your allegiance to being Good as soon as it becomes inconvenient for you. There is no compromising, Evil is Evil and must be avoided at all costs.

Just because you don't agree with a moral or ethical system doesn't mean it's falling apart or that it's wrong. It's internally consistent. In fact, being internally consistent is it's greatest strength. You're wedded to this notion that Evil = Mean People and Good = Nice People, which might hold much of the time but isn't necessarily true. Your alignment is determined by which cosmic forces you've given a stronger foothold in the material plane through your actions. Just like if you started lightning a bunch of fires you'd bring in more energy from the Elemental Plane of Fire, by being Evil or Good you bring more of that energy into the material. You can pick Evil up. You can put Evil down. You can throw Evil at the kids on your lawn. You can drink Evil. Sometimes it even tastes good. When actions can literally produce useable magic juice you've thrown any sort of moral relativism out the window completely.

Shades of grey can still exist for people who aren't divinely inclined. Most people can't read auras, and most people probably don't really care beyond getting into their own prefered afterlife. They aren't Paladins. Hell, most people aren't even Good. The majority probably thinks Paladins are a little nutty, if often helpful.

Now with that in mind, I'll actually answer OP's question. Paladins are forces of uncompromising Good, and destroy Evil wherever it is found. In my view, which probably isn't entirely by the book, Paladins destroy Evil before they kowtow to Law. Whether or not a Paladin can tolerate a Lich ruler depends on how you're setting works.

1. In some settings, undead are always Evil, both in nature and in behavior. The Paladin destroys the Lich because it's basically made of Evil and can't be allowed to exist. It's anathematic to his very cause. I believe this is how 5e works, where the question is pretty much the same as "Would a Paladin tolerate a Devil ruling a Kingdom?"
2. The Lich, as a person, is not Evil, but undead are. Typically this is caused that a Lich itself is not Evil, but undead creatures are fueled by the plane of negative energy, and therefore bring Evil energy into the world by existing, so their existence is inherently Evil. The paladin destroys the Lich because, again, it's anathematic to his cause to allow a source of Evil to endure. This is how 3.5 works, with undead detecting as Evil and being affected by Smite Evil, even if they're Neutral or Good. Same deal with "redeemed" Devils/Demons.
3. Undead are not inherently Evil, but the Lich as a person is Evil. Paladin destroys the Lich for obvious reasons, it's the same as any other Evil ruler.
4. Neither undead or the Lich as a person are Evil. The Paladin isn't obliged to do anything because no Evil is happening.

It's important to remember that Paladin's aren't necessarily suicidal or stupid(although they can be either or both), so a level 1 Paladin probably isn't going to charge right into the Lich's throne room and challenge him to a duel. There's Evil somewhere he actually has a chance of removing, so the stuff that can actually be accomplished is going to be prioritized.

Segev

2017-04-07, 11:18 AM

Max is right this far: If Writer Will fiats a system where "lying is evil" (but otherwise looks like D&D's alignment grid), and then pulls an Anne Frank scenario where the NG cleric in whose attic she's hiding is flat-out asked, yes-or-no, if Anne is hiding in his attic, he's evil for exposing her and he's evil for lying. This is a degenerate "objective" morality system.

Zanos is right to point out that just because Will can write this degenerate fiat system doesn't mean that all fiat systems are inherently degenerate. Heck, D&D's handles it as Zanos points out: lying is chaotic, not evil.

Though even that's a stretch. Technically, breaking one's word is chaotic. Deception is not necessarily aligned at all.

(One could, obviously, be a Lawful person whose code forbids speaking falsely; such things are favorites of Devils and other LE sorts who can claim they never lie while deceiving their hearts out.)

Zanos

2017-04-07, 11:33 AM

Max is right this far: If Writer Will fiats a system where "lying is evil" (but otherwise looks like D&D's alignment grid), and then pulls an Anne Frank scenario where the NG cleric in whose attic she's hiding is flat-out asked, yes-or-no, if Anne is hiding in his attic, he's evil for exposing her and he's evil for lying. This is a degenerate "objective" morality system.
"Yes, but you'll never get to her" followed by violence is still a valid response under such a system in this scenario. Heroes taking a non-obvious and potentially personally dangerous option to get out of nasty scenarios is a pretty well established storytelling trope. You could write a code or contrive a scenario where no option is the "right" option, but it would take some doing, and I think you would have to be doing it intentionally.

Mordar

2017-04-07, 11:52 AM

The most important considerations for the paladin are:

1) Can I do something?
2) What happens if I do something?
3) What happens if I do nothing?

All of those obviously depend on the paladin's own power, the lich itself, its people, and its neighbors.

I'd like to throw more detail (and sticky red tape) in the mix:

Should I, the paladin, do something?
Can I, the paladin, do something?
What happens to the kingdom/world if I, the paladin, do something?
What happens to the kingdom/world if I, the paladin, do nothing?
What happens to the paladin if he destroys the lich and the ensuing vacuum creates a horrible civil war/worse ruler?

Also, regarding legitimate authority: This isn't some idealized political utopia where authority comes from the consent of the governed. This is a fictional setting where gods are real things...where mind-altering magic is a real thing...where force of arms is a legitimate authority. And most interestingly to this discussion, multiple legitimate authorities exist and can/will come in direct conflict. That the OP framed the question including the ideas of the Paladin "just visiting" the kingdom as well as living in the kingdom speaks, I think, to this topic.

- M

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-07, 11:57 AM

Lying is Chaotic, not Evil. And that code isn't violated, considering your example doesn't present "never allow an innocent to come to harm through inaction", it says "never kill an innocent." I don't lie and I don't help anyone. Code preserved. I agree with you in the sense that any code of morals that's followed absolutely to the letter at all times regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances is going to seem a little strange unless it's very particularly worded. But that doesn't make them broken, it just makes the dedicated adherents seem a tad crazy. If we do revise the code to be what you intended, where lying would save lives and your code says you should both preserve lives and not lie, you can do both, it just probably won't result in the best outcome from an outside perspective. But that's why codes exist. "Do the most practical thing in every situation" isn't a code, and if codes of moral standard are only followed when convenient they really don't have any purpose. If the code values innocent lives over its adherents lying, it should have a hierarchy of values. If those things are weighed equally the code is still internally consistent, it, again, just seems bizarre to others even if it makes perfect sense.

So it doesn't fall apart, you just don't agree with the outcomes it produces. If some innocent child was turned into plane destroying WMD by some Evil powers and you kill the child to stop it, that's an Evil action. Murdering innocents is always Evil, even if under your view it was the "least bad thing." Being Good all the time is hard, and being Good requires that you find an alternative that isn't Evil at all. It means that you don't toss away your allegiance to being Good as soon as it becomes inconvenient for you. There is no compromising, Evil is Evil and must be avoided at all costs.

If you kill the child, you kill an innocent. If you don't kill the child, you allow (how many?) innocents to die through inaction.

We've seen that very scenario, with an absolute of "allow through inaction = evil" included, put forward.

And sometimes, there's no way way. "There's always another way" is a platitude, a trite fictional conceit that doesn't survive without the author's protection. Sometimes, there is no alternative, at all. It's not "compromise", it's how real situations actually work out sometimes.

Max is right this far: If Writer Will fiats a system where "lying is evil" (but otherwise looks like D&D's alignment grid), and then pulls an Anne Frank scenario where the NG cleric in whose attic she's hiding is flat-out asked, yes-or-no, if Anne is hiding in his attic, he's evil for exposing her and he's evil for lying. This is a degenerate "objective" morality system.

Zanos is right to point out that just because Will can write this degenerate fiat system doesn't mean that all fiat systems are inherently degenerate. Heck, D&D's handles it as Zanos points out: lying is chaotic, not evil.

"Yes, but you'll never get to her" followed by violence is still a valid response under such a system in this scenario. Heroes taking a non-obvious and potentially personally dangerous option to get out of nasty scenarios is a pretty well established storytelling trope. You could write a code or contrive a scenario where no option is the "right" option, but it would take some doing, and I think you would have to be doing it intentionally.

And then the priest dies, and the family he's hiding dies anyway, but hey, the priest is still "good" because he didn't hit any of the "evil checkboxes", and he can die with his conscience satisfied, I guess.

Segev

2017-04-07, 12:10 PM

Like I said, "Lying is always evil" does lead to a degenerate "objective" morality. Which is why it is identifiably bad as a rule for such.

Knaight

2017-04-07, 12:10 PM

"Yes, but you'll never get to her" followed by violence is still a valid response under such a system in this scenario. Heroes taking a non-obvious and potentially personally dangerous option to get out of nasty scenarios is a pretty well established storytelling trope. You could write a code or contrive a scenario where no option is the "right" option, but it would take some doing, and I think you would have to be doing it intentionally.

This isn't taking a non-obvious and personally dangerous option. This is taking a stupid option that puts the person under protection at unnecessary risk for basically no reason, and while the whole scenario doesn't say much about objective systems in general it does say a lot about poorly constructed deontological systems with garbage rules like "never lie" in them.

Satinavian

2017-04-07, 12:10 PM

What if the paladin is a member of the order that is the highest court? Then it was the paladin or his predecessor itself who ruled that the Lich can be king.
He might be able to rule against the king if the king does some new crime but he is already part of the system that gives the Lich-King legitimacy.

He doesn't. If a fighter or rogue subscribes to a code that extends them authorities that local legal systems deny, the fighter or rogue still could act on them in a Lawful fashion.

This does get sticky, but as long as the character really is adhering to a set code that provides external authority governing his actions, he can be Lawful even if he is utterly rejecting the "law of the land" where he happens to be. Sure, with the way alignment works in D&D you can be an outlaw and a terrorist and still be considered lawful if you have some kind of code.
But the problem is that the rulership of the Lich is not bad. Deposing the Lich-Kind does not help anyone and is certainly not a good deed. Even the (sometimes overstretched) "greater good" does not count as a reason for the paladin to engage in terrorism and regicide. That leaves basically only vanity and pride.

Consider it thusly: Paladin Paul from the Empire of Enlightenment has been granted authority as an enforcer of Emperor Edward's will, in the name of the Enlightened Gods that the Empire worships. They're genuinely an LG empire.

Despot Dirk of the People's Free and Friendly Democratic Republican Lands of Liberty is a CE tyrant who barely gives a nod to "laws" that govern his power; he really is just a semi-feudal lord who manages a system of bribery and favoritism and personal loyalty based on fear and greed to keep himself in power. He can do anything because nobody can or will stop him. But he's the legitimate ruler of the PFFDRLL, in that everybody recognizes him as such and obeys his will.

The Emperor, with the blessing of the enlightened gods, declares Dirk to be a criminal and his nation to be properly a part of the Empire. He sends Paul to arrest this criminal overlord who has too long tormented those poor people

Paul is acting with what he considers legitimate authority when he goes into the PFFDRLL and starts working to overthrow, capture, or kill Dirk. The people of the PFFDRLL don't consider Emperor Edward, the enlightened gods, nor the Empire as legitimate sources of authority, so they don't think Paul is acting with legitimacy at all.

Who's right? Both and neither, really. "Legitimate" authority is what you make of it. If you subscribe to the system that gives it legitimacy, it's legitimate. If not, it's illegitimate.

Again, premise of the thread : Lich king is legitimate ruler. So emporer Edward doesn't have a reasonable claim and even Paul knows that. So it is just a normal invasion under a pretext.

Cases where the Lich is not legitimate ruler is not what we consider here.

Zanos

2017-04-07, 12:10 PM

If you kill the child, you kill an innocent. If you don't kill the child, you allow (how many?) innocents to die through inaction.
A code holding someone responsible for allowing something to happen through inaction is essentially impossible to maintain to begin with, but sure.

And sometimes, there's no way way. "There's always another way" is a platitude, a trite fictional conceit that doesn't survive without the author's protection.
A situation has to be contrived for there to only ever be one solution. It might not be the most effective or practical approach, but there's usually other options. Most moral codes do not require success or even efficiency in order to be maintained. If your code says that you can't allow innocents to die through inaction, expect a lot of martyrs and a lot of failure.

And then the priest dies, and the family he's hiding dies anyway, but hey, the priest is still "good" because he didn't hit any of the "evil checkboxes", and he can die with his conscience satisfied, I guess.
Now you're getting it! But the cleric and probably the family also get to go to their preferred eternal afterlife where they're happy forever, because gods and deities and heaven are all real things you can pay a wizard or priest to plane shift you to if you don't believe that it's true.

This isn't taking a non-obvious and personally dangerous option. This is taking a stupid option that puts the person under protection at unnecessary risk for basically no reason, and while the whole scenario doesn't say much about objective systems in general it does say a lot about poorly constructed deontological systems with garbage rules like "never lie" in them.
If the cleric's deity thought that the lives of innocents were more important than his followers lying or not lying, he could have easily said that. But it's not exactly like D&D deities are exactly rational, try explaining to a deity literally made of the concepts of Law and Honor and Good that you totally needed to lie. And there isn't "no reason." To a cleric, dogma is important. You only think it's a stupid reason because you don't agree with it.

Segev

2017-04-07, 12:16 PM

Knaight

2017-04-07, 12:23 PM

If the cleric's deity thought that the lives of innocents were more important than his followers lying or not lying, he could have easily said that. But it's not exactly like D&D deities are exactly rational, try explaining to a deity literally made of the concepts of Law and Honor and Good that you totally needed to lie. And there isn't "no reason." To a cleric, dogma is important. You only think it's a stupid reason because you don't agree with it.

That's absolutely true - if I valued not lying over not actively helping murderers find their victims, I'd probably feel differently. As is, I'm more than willing to use putting forth this code as evidence that the deity in question isn't actually good.

Zanos

2017-04-07, 12:27 PM

That's absolutely true - if I valued not lying over not actively helping murderers find their victims, I'd probably feel differently. As is, I'm more than willing to use putting forth this code as evidence that the deity in question isn't actually good.
It's not valuing not lying over innocents dying, it's valuing them the same, which is why you're obligated to both not lie and try to stop the murders, even if you fail. Although of course not saying anything at all isn't technically lying...

Knaight

2017-04-07, 12:32 PM

It's not valuing not lying over innocents dying, it's valuing them the same, which is why you're obligated to both not lie and try to stop the murders, even if you fail. Although of course not saying anything at all isn't technically lying...

It's not just innocents dying, it's innocents dying when you could easily prevent it by lying to the shock troops of a brutal dictatorship. On top of that, valuing them the same isn't much better.

Grim Portent

2017-04-07, 12:34 PM

It's also entirely possible to consider lying to be evil on the same scale as letting people be found by their potential murderers and lie anyway, you'd just consider it to be a moral failing on your part and feel bad until your guilt was assuaged by your priest or some sort of penance, same as you'd feel/do if you chose not to lie and let the family get killed.

Zanos

2017-04-07, 12:35 PM

It's not just innocents dying, it's innocents dying when you could easily prevent it by lying to the shock troops of a brutal dictatorship. On top of that, valuing them the same isn't much better.
Sure? I mean, that's not my own morality and I wouldn't want someone to practice that sort of thing in the real world, but it's only a broken code when you strip out that deities are real and Evil/Good/Chaos/Law are physical forces and not just philosophical concepts.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-07, 01:28 PM

A code holding someone responsible for allowing something to happen through inaction is essentially impossible to maintain to begin with, but sure.

I thought it would have been clear, but that's not "anything in all of existence you don't try to stop is your moral failing", it's "you had the opportunity right in front of you and did nothing".

(Although... there are some out there who believe that you either spend every available moment helping others, or you admit that you don't care at all and it doesn't matter one bit, or you're a hypocrite. I am not one of those people, however.)

A situation has to be contrived for there to only ever be one solution. It might not be the most effective or practical approach, but there's usually other options. Most moral codes do not require success or even efficiency in order to be maintained. If your code says that you can't allow innocents to die through inaction, expect a lot of martyrs and a lot of failure.

No one said anything about there being only one option -- where did you get that?

Everyday real life is full of situations in which there are only bad options, including "doing nothing" having bad outcomes, and one is left to choose the least-bad option. So unless the real world is "contrived", you're going to have a hard time proving that all fictional "least bad option" situations are contrived.

Now you're getting it! But the cleric and probably the family also get to go to their preferred eternal afterlife where they're happy forever, because gods and deities and heaven are all real things you can pay a wizard or priest to plane shift you to if you don't believe that it's true.

So an eternity of doing good doesn't make up for a single "unspeakably evil" act... but an eternity of blissful afterlife does make up for being brutally murdered? (Brutally murdered at the very least... in the spirit of "unspeakable", we'll leave almost bottomless possibilities of depravity and suffering as an exercise in opening up history's darker chapters.)

No... I don't think so.

It's not just innocents dying, it's innocents dying when you could easily prevent it by lying to the shock troops of a brutal dictatorship. On top of that, valuing them the same isn't much better.

Sure? I mean, that's not my own morality and I wouldn't want someone to practice that sort of thing in the real world, but it's only a broken code when you strip out that deities are real and Evil/Good/Chaos/Law are physical forces and not just philosophical concepts.

None of those things make any difference in the matter.

Keltest

2017-04-07, 01:29 PM

It's not just innocents dying, it's innocents dying when you could easily prevent it by lying to the shock troops of a brutal dictatorship. On top of that, valuing them the same isn't much better.

I guess, if theyre awful wussy shock troops who politely ask the wanted individuals to please come out of wherever theyre hiding instead of behaving like an actual brutal shock trooper of an all-powerful dictatorship.

The entire scenario is based on something highly implausible to begin with.

Segev

2017-04-07, 01:33 PM

I guess, if theyre awful wussy shock troops who politely ask the wanted individuals to please come out of wherever theyre hiding instead of behaving like an actual brutal shock trooper of an all-powerful dictatorship.

The entire scenario is based on something highly implausible to begin with.

The actual Anne Frank story featured several times when the troops in question took the homeowner's word for it that he wasn't harboring any Jews. There's a simple fact that forcibly searching every house is impractical, and brutally attacking people to do so when they could be telling the truth even more so. Forcible searches wait until you have reason to suspect THIS house is one that DOES have what you're looking for, despite the owner's protestations to the contrary.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-07, 01:38 PM

Zanos

2017-04-07, 01:40 PM

So an eternity of doing good doesn't make up for a single "unspeakably evil" act...
I never made any such claim, and "unspeakably Evil" acts are a narrative cheat anyway. Redemption does exist in D&D, even for the most Evil of people. The only exceptions I believe are certain outsiders, being physically made of Evil.

but an eternity of blissful afterlife does make up for being brutally murdered?
"Being murdered" isn't an activity that has anything to do with the alignment scale. We aren't paying off any sort of moral debt here.

No... I don't think so.
You're free to view the moral system as not being in-line with real world moral systems and criticize it as such, but criticizing it as not being internally consistent or logical is just wrong.

Mordar

2017-04-07, 01:41 PM

Okay, if we're going with "by premise, the paladin agrees the lich is the legitimate ruler," then that does take the question of legitimacy off the table. You're right, that is implied by the title saying the lich is the legitimate ruler. Questioning by whose standards is violating the premise. So we will agree that the paladin shares those standards.

But I don't think the only question the paladin would be concerned with is the legitimacy of the lich ruling the kingdom. The paladin wouldn't have any issue offing the legitimate ruler of the clan of orcs that keep raiding the farmsteads in disputed lands in the Kingdom of the North. Or killing the general of an army at war with his country's army.

The legitimacy of the lich's rule may be based on a rule that says "Whomever should kill the sitting ruler becomes the new ruler" ala Kull...and it may be a purely democratic process by which he was crowned by the masses, or somewhere in between. This is kind of the crux of my point about multiple and potentially conflicting sources of authority.

This is where I think we need more information about the Paladin's god/order...because the answers might be very different if it is a Divinity of Justice versus a Divinity of War versus a Divinity of Boy-I-Hate-Undead-Because-They-Are-A-Crime-Against-The-Natural-Order.

I believe accepting the lich is a legitimate ruler who appears to be doing at least as well as average for the kingdom's residents is an important premise. But it is only the beginning of the conversation. I clearly believe the "it takes such an evil act(s) to become a lich that the lich must be evil...at least to start" is another important premise.

- M

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-07, 02:24 PM

I never made any such claim,

Multiple others who've otherwise made the same arguments you're making, have. In this thread, in some cases.

"Making up for ________" is a the common ground between the two situations.

"Being murdered" isn't an activity that has anything to do with the alignment scale. We aren't paying off any sort of moral debt here.

Evidently the deities in question, or "the cosmic forces of the universe", are -- as you said, in response to the cleric and the family all dying because the cleric decided to fight it out rather than lie or turn them in, which has the same effect as turning them in: "But the cleric and probably the family also get to go to their preferred eternal afterlife where they're happy forever, because gods and deities and heaven are all real things"

You're free to view the moral system as not being in-line with real world moral systems and criticize it as such, but criticizing it as not being internally consistent or logical is just wrong.

I'm free to view it for what it is.

Zanos

2017-04-07, 02:33 PM

Multiple others who've otherwise made the same arguments you're making, have. In this thread, in some cases.
I'll be sure to bring that up at the weekly meeting of people with similar but not quite identical opinions.

Evidently the deities in question, or "the cosmic forces of the universe", are -- as you said, in response to the cleric and the family all dying because the cleric decided to fight it out rather than lie or turn them in, which has the same effect as turning them in: "But the cleric and probably the family also get to go to their preferred eternal afterlife where they're happy forever, because gods and deities and heaven are all real things"
That's not paying off the debt of them being murdered, that's just what happens when you die assuming you followed your deities dogma correctly. It's not "oh **** you got murdered lol my bad let me hook you up with some sweet heaven" it's "oh you got murdered my ledger here says you're good so go on in." Getting murdered isn't relevant to whether or not you get let into your afterlife. Unless there's some wacky prohibition on getting murdered, which would be weird but not impossible. I'm pointing out that death isn't really as big of a deal in D&D land where deities and heaven provably exist, so living in accordance with your dogma is far more important than pretty much anything else.

ross

2017-04-07, 03:33 PM

Thought of something -- does this mean that anyone who aligned or attuned sufficiently would just wake up one morning with paladin of _____ abilities?

Yes. Paladins are essentially the Saitamas of d&d.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-07, 08:54 PM

That's not paying off the debt of them being murdered, that's just what happens when you die assuming you followed your deities dogma correctly. It's not "oh **** you got murdered lol my bad let me hook you up with some sweet heaven" it's "oh you got murdered my ledger here says you're good so go on in." Getting murdered isn't relevant to whether or not you get let into your afterlife. Unless there's some wacky prohibition on getting murdered, which would be weird but not impossible. I'm pointing out that death isn't really as big of a deal in D&D land where deities and heaven provably exist, so living in accordance with your dogma is far more important than pretty much anything else.

So does all that afterlife crap make up for them being brutally murdered (and all the other suffering), or not?

Because in the context of the following exchange, it certainly appears to be offered up as some sort of consolation for all that suffering:

Max is right this far: If Writer Will fiats a system where "lying is evil" (but otherwise looks like D&D's alignment grid), and then pulls an Anne Frank scenario where the NG cleric in whose attic she's hiding is flat-out asked, yes-or-no, if Anne is hiding in his attic, he's evil for exposing her and he's evil for lying. This is a degenerate "objective" morality system.

Zanos is right to point out that just because Will can write this degenerate fiat system doesn't mean that all fiat systems are inherently degenerate. Heck, D&D's handles it as Zanos points out: lying is chaotic, not evil.

"Yes, but you'll never get to her" followed by violence is still a valid response under such a system in this scenario. Heroes taking a non-obvious and potentially personally dangerous option to get out of nasty scenarios is a pretty well established storytelling trope. You could write a code or contrive a scenario where no option is the "right" option, but it would take some doing, and I think you would have to be doing it intentionally.

And then the priest dies, and the family he's hiding dies anyway, but hey, the priest is still "good" because he didn't hit any of the "evil checkboxes", and he can die with his conscience satisfied, I guess.

Now you're getting it! But the cleric and probably the family also get to go to their preferred eternal afterlife where they're happy forever, because gods and deities and heaven are all real things you can pay a wizard or priest to plane shift you to if you don't believe that it's true.

Emphasis added.

Keltest

2017-04-07, 09:01 PM

So does all that afterlife crap make up for them being brutally murdered (and all the other suffering), or not?

Its not meant to "make up" for anything, but people are going to be more willing to risk death if they believe that they have a good afterlife awaiting them.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-07, 09:11 PM

Its not meant to "make up" for anything, but people are going to be more willing to risk death if they believe that they have a good afterlife awaiting them.

In the situation in question, the priest who decides "Don't lie, don't give up the innocents, attack instead!" isn't just choosing to risk his own death, he's risking the death of those he's hiding too.

But hey, let them all die, the gods will know their own, I guess.

Steampunkette

2017-04-07, 09:55 PM

Evil is both what you do and, more importantly, why you do it.

A NE scribe who works for the king and dutifully follows all the laws can still be a petty jerk who delights in tying people up in bureaucracy without wanting to kill the king and rule. He's still an evil little curious who probably deserves a smiting, but so long as he causes no real problem no paladin will hunt him down.

If the Lich is a Just ruler who delights in handing out harsh punishments and lord ing his wealth over people he can still be a thing of evil without being a malevolent entity destroying the world with an army of the dead.

Evil isn't always a threat. Sometimes it's just petty and spiteful.

The ultimate question lies in what good comes of his destruction, and what evil. If you kill him, you'll be executed for regicide, which is a wash. But who takes power? Who gets hurt in the interim? Does the warmongering general take power and use an army to squash a peaceful kingdom?

Morality is more complex than two letters on a character sheet.

Keltest

2017-04-07, 09:58 PM

In the situation in question, the priest who decides "Don't lie, don't give up the innocents, attack instead!" isn't just choosing to risk his own death, he's risking the death of those he's hiding too.

But hey, let them all die, the gods will know their own, I guess.

That's true regardless of what he chooses to do though.

Satinavian

2017-04-08, 12:41 AM

But I don't think the only question the paladin would be concerned with is the legitimacy of the lich ruling the kingdom. The paladin wouldn't have any issue offing the legitimate ruler of the clan of orcs that keep raiding the farmsteads in disputed lands in the Kingdom of the North. Or killing the general of an army at war with his country's army.

The legitimacy of the lich's rule may be based on a rule that says "Whomever should kill the sitting ruler becomes the new ruler" ala Kull...and it may be a purely democratic process by which he was crowned by the masses, or somewhere in between. This is kind of the crux of my point about multiple and potentially conflicting sources of authority.

This is where I think we need more information about the Paladin's god/order...because the answers might be very different if it is a Divinity of Justice versus a Divinity of War versus a Divinity of Boy-I-Hate-Undead-Because-They-Are-A-Crime-Against-The-Natural-Order.

I believe accepting the lich is a legitimate ruler who appears to be doing at least as well as average for the kingdom's residents is an important premise. But it is only the beginning of the conversation. I clearly believe the "it takes such an evil act(s) to become a lich that the lich must be evil...at least to start" is another important premise.

- MExactly. So let's reiterate :

- The Lich ruler is legitimate
- He is a fair (enough) ruler
- He has done something extremely evil in the past

So the problem revolves around the following : Without the act of unspeakable evil the paladin had no reason to off the ruler. Offing the ruler does not prevent any harm as the rulership is comparably fair, to the conrtrary it is more likely to cause harm as many rulers are not considered fair (enough) and instability is always bad. Murdering a ruler for pinging Evil is wrong, actually an evil act in itself.

Does the Evil act of the ruler in the past change all that ? Is a paladin supposed instead of protecting the innocent and fighting those who threaten them to dig around in the past of people who don't do evil and punish them for old, forgotten, buried trangressions ? And all that without even having the lawful mandate to do so nor victoms who seek justice ?

I don't think the past deeds of the Lich change anything and killing him without any better justification would still be murder and thus an evil act.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-04-08, 01:30 AM

Destroying a lich is never wrong. A lich is an unholy abomination and an affront to all that is right and good in the world.

One may certainly decline to destroy a lich for reasons like "He's not up to much trouble currently. There's higher priorities." or "He's a lich. He's way out of my league. I will go destroy some evil goblins instead" or even "Destroying this lich will destabilize the region and cause more harm than good".

None of those options say that destroying a lich is wrong. They're just saying that one may choose to exercise discretion in picking their battles.

Steampunkette

2017-04-08, 09:52 AM

Keltest

2017-04-08, 09:59 AM

... the last one flatly states that killing the lich is wrong.

Causing more Harm than Good is wrong. In point of fact, it would probably cost a Paladin his Paladin-ish-ness as an evil act.

Well. So long as he did it knowing that it would cause more harm than good (And since Liches are SUCH evil things, we're talking about a massive amount of harm to cancel out that good, right? Like... arson at the puppy orphanage harm.

While it would be an appropriately lich-like plan to make sure that the nation collapses should he be removed from power, I think they would struggle to simultaneously do that and have a prosperous nation of any size, because one person just cannot micromanage everything to that degree, especially a wizard who wants to devote time to the study of magic.

NichG

2017-04-08, 10:34 AM

In feudal and monarchic societies, there are lots of ways that even a complete figurehead being removed can cause the collapse of the kingdom. Succession wars, titles which pass out of the country on inheritance (thus potentially giving a powerful neighbor justification for war or even just de facto ownership of some holdings), etc. Being immortal is just in itself a pretty helpful thing for a feudal ruler to do for his people.

Other governmental systems would disarm that particular dead man's switch. In which case the lich would have to e.g. make wise and informed decisions beyond the ability of others in the country. Which is something that high level magic users do have particular tools for that might be hard for a group of 9th level Nobles to emulate. Doesn't necessarily have to be micromanagement, just that the lich might be the only one in the vicinity of the throne who can easily do a Contact Other Plane when difficult matters of policy and strategy come up.

Alternately, the lich could have a network of personal alliances built up over his long existence. He's poker buddies with the black dragon in yonder mountains, babysat the elf king when he was a lad, etc. If all those alliances collapse, those beings might withdraw their aid or even become hostile.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-04-08, 12:35 PM

... the last one flatly states that killing the lich is wrong.

Causing more Harm than Good is wrong. In point of fact, it would probably cost a Paladin his Paladin-ish-ness as an evil act.

Well. So long as he did it knowing that it would cause more harm than good (And since Liches are SUCH evil things, we're talking about a massive amount of harm to cancel out that good, right? Like... arson at the puppy orphanage harm.

It would be wrong from a real world consequentialist ethics perspective, (which I happen to agree with). D&D does not function on real world consequentialist ethics. So long as destabilizing the region wasn't the paladin's goal, it's not Evil. Knowingly doing it might make the paladin a callous jerk, but being a callous jerk is not Evil.

NichG

2017-04-08, 12:49 PM

It would be wrong from a real world consequentialist ethics perspective, (which I happen to agree with). D&D does not function on real world consequentialist ethics. So long as destabilizing the region wasn't the paladin's goal, it's not Evil. Knowingly doing it might make the paladin a callous jerk, but being a callous jerk is not Evil.

Actually, it looks like being a callous jerk can be Evil. From the SRD:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

So, 'having no compassion for others and hurting/oppressing/killing without qualms if doing so is convenient' is listed as characteristic of Evil alignments. Not having respect for life, not having concern for what happens to other sentient beings in this case, etc is at best Neutral.

In this case, killing the Lich may be a Good act on the basis of ending the existence of an Evil creature, but doing so in a way which is negligent and callous about what happens to others is potentially a separate, Evil act. If someone were to kill an innocent bystander in the process of killing a demon, the fact that killing the bystander allowed the person to kill the demon (ostensibly a Good act) doesn't make killing the bystander not be an Evil act.

But perhaps the real lesson is, D&D gives everyone enough rope to hang each-other however you like. Unless you're constantly staring into a phylactery of faithfulness, there isn't really a guaranteed safe place to stand where a character's alignment can't come into question due to differences in interpretation.

Steampunkette

2017-04-08, 01:34 PM

It would be wrong from a real world consequentialist ethics perspective, (which I happen to agree with). D&D does not function on real world consequentialist ethics. So long as destabilizing the region wasn't the paladin's goal, it's not Evil. Knowingly doing it might make the paladin a callous jerk, but being a callous jerk is not Evil.

The Book of Exalted Deeds goes into it, because while it's not consequentialist ethics, it's informed action.

A Paladin runs away from a monster on the side of a mountain and hits a patch of scree, he manages to not fall but the scree starts a rockslide and crushed a town. The Paladin did nothing wrong because it was an accident, his alignment is intact.

The paladin runs away from a monster on the side of a mountain and sees a sign warning of scree. he manages not to fall but the scree starts a rockslide and crushed a town. The Paladin may temporarily invoke wrath from the gods for his callous carelessness.

The paladin runs away from a monster on the side of a mountain and sees a sign warning that running through the area can trigger rockslides and crush the town below. He manages not to fall but does cause a rockslide and crush the town. The Paladin immediately loses access to his paladin abilities because he knowingly caused the rockslide. He may not have wanted it to happen, but he knew his actions would cause it and still did so.

If the Paladin knows killing the lich will cause more harm than good (On the order of arson at the puppy orphanage for wayward puppies with cancer) then he will have willingly committed an evil act by killing the lich. Even if the death of the Lich counts for some good.

Unless, y'know, he has no reasonable expectation that evil will come from his actions, which makes him ignorant and the consequences unintentional.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-04-08, 01:43 PM

So, 'having no compassion for others and hurting/oppressing/killing without qualms if doing so is convenient' is listed as characteristic of Evil alignments. Not having respect for life, not having concern for what happens to other sentient beings in this case, etc is at best Neutral.

Yes, accepting that some civilians may get killed in the collapse of an Evil regime is neutral. That's fine. Everyone does neutral things all the time.

In this case, killing the Lich may be a Good act on the basis of ending the existence of an Evil creature, but doing so in a way which is negligent and callous about what happens to others is potentially a separate, Evil act. If someone were to kill an innocent bystander in the process of killing a demon, the fact that killing the bystander allowed the person to kill the demon (ostensibly a Good act) doesn't make killing the bystander not be an Evil act.

Killing an innocent bystander in the process of killing a demon is absolutely an Evil action, if you did it knowingly. If a second demon has a knife to an innocent person's throat and threatens to kill them if you attack the first demon, that's a different situation. By D&D standards you are not responsible for the actions of that second demon so long as you're not condoning or supporting them. Though it would certainly be a nice thing if you found a way to save the person in the process. That's the difference between Jerk Good and Nice Good.

If the Paladin knows killing the lich will cause more harm than good (On the order of arson at the puppy orphanage for wayward puppies with cancer) then he will have willingly committed an evil act by killing the lich. Even if the death of the Lich counts for some good.

The difference is that a rockslide is not an independent actor, the paladin is setting physics in motion. A nation collapsing due to internal strife is not a simple physics engine. If other people are tearing the nation apart once the lich is dead then any Evil from that rests solely on them.

Though again, having a method in place to stop the nation from collapsing would certainly be the Nice Good thing to do.

D+1

2017-04-08, 01:58 PM

TLDR. Just to riff off an earlier post in the thread:

The situation should be impossible to begin with.

Evil is not the result of actions, the actions are the result of evil. A Lich is by definition evil and unnatural. Therefore, the Lich's kingdom should not fairly ruled. Positing that a Lich could rule a kingdom in a way that "treats people fairly enough" is the same as positing a river that flows upstream.Absolutely agreed.

For player characters actions dictate alignment. In order to BE evil as a PC you act evil. If you never DO evil as a PC then you effectively demonstrate that you are not. NPC's and monsters are somewhat different. Players don't need to be given a specific list or extended demonstration that something/someone does evil in order for the DM to DICTATE: "This creature is evil," but the same general principle applies. If a creature demonstrably has never lived up to its evil alignment then what is it that makes it evil?

But let's say that this *is* a river that flows upstream. Just for the sake of your premise.

The paladin would then have to fall.Absolutely NOT so.

A paladin must be both good and lawful. Being good, the paladin cannot tolerate the evil Lich doing what he wants if the paladin could combat him.Being good and lawful does not mean that if evil exists somewhere in the universe the paladin will fall if he fails to combat it. There are limits to what a paladin can do - or must do even if he theoretically can do it. Not every 1st level paladin is required to prove that they are absolutely physically incapable of successful regicide before they are absolved of failing to attempt it.

Much depends here on the individual DM's interpretation of alignment, paladins, and the rules edition the game is following. If we're talking about a 1E or 2E campaign and the DM is adhering "reasonably close" to BTB then there is actually substantial tools given to the DM to limit the capability of a paladin to detect evil and therefore relieve player characters of an obligation to kill every evil thing that exists in the world. Combating evil is undoubtedly what the class exists to do but FAILURE to rid the world of every evil thing that they possibly can the instant they realize that it exists and IS evil is not a condition for falling.

Know what IS a condition for a paladin falling in 1E? Knowingly doing evil. If they knowingly do something chaotic they must atone, but they only completely fall if they knowingly do evil. Not even "accidentally" doing evil is enough for them to fall. They must KNOW that what they do is genuinely evil but choose to do it anyway. Mind you, that's in 1E (which IMO is the first and BEST approach for putting paladins in D&D). Other editions have certainly taken that paladin concept from 1E, as well as the concept of alignment, and decidedly twisted them in a half dozen often unrecognizable ways, so, edition matters in this sort of discussion.

Still, failing to go forth and kill a lich just because you know the lich exists, and EVEN know where the lich lives, and EVEN if you have the capability to successfully defeat that lich does not comprise either chaotic or evil behavior on the part of the paladin. If and when that paladin and lich actually physically cross paths, or when the paladin CHOOSES to make it their business to directly combat that lich for whatever reasons (not that they DO need one beyond, "It's Evil and should be destroyed," that's a bit different - but not much. Simply examining the probabilities for success and saying, "I think there's too high a chance of ME being killed if I try to confront this lich," is a perfectly legitimate reason to "permit" that lich to continue to reign, and instead go fight OTHER evil things that the paladin stands a better chance of success at defeating.

Being lawful, the paladin must respect the Lich's legitimacy as ruler. Therefore, the paladin falls whether or not he attempts to remove the Lich from power.This is a common, but poor misinterpretation. Any edition that says that a paladin must obey all written laws in order to remain lawful is justifiably disregarded. The opposite of lawful is NOT criminal. The opposite of lawful is CHAOS. Lawful, therefore, has to do with a much deeper sense of morality. Obeying laws is not what keeps a character lawful. If those laws are just and appropriate then the LG paladin would do the things those laws require whether they were written into law or not. The paladin would do those things anyway because they are the right and proper things to do, not just because they were written down. Following the written law does not make a character lawful in terms of alignment. Written laws are often a result of lawful alignment; lawful alignment is not the result of written law. Codes of written law are used to get people who are not lawful to do things that rulers and societies desire (whether those rulers and societies are themselves lawful or not), generally by imposing penalties upon those who disobey the written law.

The paladins alignment and continued conduct AS a paladin have absolutely nothing to do with respect or disregard for the lich as a "lawful"/legitimate ruler.

This doesn't make too much sense, but of course, it doesn't make too much sense before the Lich fairly ruling a kingdom didn't make sense to begin with.
Paladins have a hard enough row to hoe without obligating them to take down every evil ruler within riding distance upon penalty of forfeiting their paladin status forever as a demonstration of "tolerating" the mere existence of such rulers.

When a paladin (and one would hope their party of associates) reaches an experience level AND a level of political/military standing that they feel they both can and should finally undertake the undoubtedly Herculean task of conquering a kingdom from the top down and replacing the existing ruler - as well as all the undoubtedly evil or complicit military, bureaucracy, and whatall - then, MAYBE, you can START to take a paladin PC to task about what they are obligated to do, versus what they willingly choose NOT to do. But still choosing not to kill one evil thing does NOT constitute APPROVAL of the existence of that evil thing or what it does/doesn't do.

Paladins - at least in 1E - are not obligated to kill every evil thing they can establish as evil. It's maybe not the worst policy they can adopt, to be sure, but there's nothing in the class description that obligates them to do anything more than BE lawful good. Even overt COWARDICE is neither chaotic nor evil - it's just a personality flaw. A pretty poor paladin you will be if you are a coward - but hardly at risk of losing your paladinhood because being a coward is not chaotic and most certainly is not EVIL.

Now, if you're talking about a paladin in 3E then they heaped a lot more obfuscatory rigamarole upon what a paladin must/must not do (which, again, I'd say that a DM ought to disregard since it has a decided tendency to make the class even more outrageously misinterpreted and difficult to play with any individuality and personality, but that's just me). Yet even in 3E there is plenty of room to "permit" a lich to continue to exist as ruler of a kingdom even when you have the "ability to combat them". A 3E paladin must remain LG, respect legitimate authority (and if the lich came into power in a way that was legal and proper for succession, etc. then even though it may be evil they would still be a "legitimate" ruler), act with honor (by not lying, cheating, using poison, etc), help those in need (and if people are not particularly in need because the lich is a relatively benign ruler...), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents (and, again, if the lich is benign as a ruler...).

Though I don't know 4E or 5E details on the topic, I'd risk saying that they likely also have quite sufficient provision for a paladin to be at no threat whatever for "permitting" a lich to rule the kingdom where the paladin lives.

Steampunkette

2017-04-08, 03:43 PM

The difference is that a rockslide is not an independent actor, the paladin is setting physics in motion. A nation collapsing due to internal strife is not a simple physics engine. If other people are tearing the nation apart once the lich is dead then any Evil from that rests solely on them.

Though again, having a method in place to stop the nation from collapsing would certainly be the Nice Good thing to do.

Nope. If you -know- that your actions will end in strife and you act you incited that strife. Regardless of the other actors involved.

If you -know- that killing the Lich who is holding back the demon horde with his wicked magic to keep them from killing people will unleash the demons and cause them to kill everyone, killing the lich is the same as unleashing those demons, even if the demons are a second actor.

You knew the risks. You made the choice. Your action resulted in chaos and torment that you could have avoided by making a different choice.

Now maybe it isn't -that- clear in this case. Maybe war is -possible- and death -might- happen... but even then you're acting recklessly with the lives of others, and if the might comes to fruition it's still your fault, even if it was a calculated risk.

That said, we're talking about a storm of evil so big it outweighs the killing of a lich. A hellstorm so strong that it would more than equal the destruction of the Lich's evil.

That's a lot of evil to be responsible for, directly.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-04-08, 03:48 PM

Nope. If you -know- that your actions will end in strife and you act you incited that strife. Regardless of the other actors involved.

If you -know- that killing the Lich who is holding back the demon horde with his wicked magic to keep them from killing people will unleash the demons and cause them to kill everyone, killing the lich is the same as unleashing those demons, even if the demons are a second actor.

You knew the risks. You made the choice. Your action resulted in chaos and torment that you could have avoided by making a different choice.

I mean, I agree with you. D&D does not.

Steampunkette

2017-04-08, 04:11 PM

I mean, I agree with you. D&D does not.

Based on the BoED it does. Dunno if 5e is ever gonna get that deep into morality.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-04-08, 04:30 PM

Based on the BoED it does. Dunno if 5e is ever gonna get that deep into morality.

Well again, there is a clear distinction between a paladin setting off a physics reaction and a paladin giving other actors a chance to do something, whether you agree that there is or not. Even beyond that, though. D&D is comprised of literally dozens of splatbooks written by dozens of different people. It is notoriously self-contradictory.

The point is, D&D does not work with consequentialist ethics. As a random sample:

A paladin may never knowingly associate with evil characters. It doesn't matter if associating with evil characters would lead to a better outcome down the road. Perhaps an alliance with those evil characters is necessary in order to stop a greater evil. But it does not matter.

Casting Protection from Good is an evil action. It doesn't matter if you really need that spell to, I don't know, protect someone from a mind controlled angel. Still an evil action, paladin will still fall from casting it.

If a person has a choice between killing an innocent child or letting the universe be destroyed, killing the child is the evil action.

If you try to argue that someone is responsible for what other people do in addition to what he does then you lead into all sorts of potential for the paladin falling no matter what he picks. "Fall or die" is a legitimate (if dickish) choice. "Fall or fall" is not. The only time a paladin is responsible for other people's actions is when he's made himself that way. A paladin is responsible for the behaviour of his hirelings, traveling companions, employees, etc. He is not responsible for the actions of random other people.

People would have a lot better time with D&D morality if they stop trying to reconcile it with actual real life morality. They're better off either cutting alignment out of the game, or just embracing the weird stupid nature of it and having fun with it.

Flickerdart

2017-04-08, 04:42 PM

If a lich is the legitimate ruler of a kingdom, has not violated the laws of the kingdom, and treats their people fairly enough (for an evil creature)... What is a paladin to do in this situation if:
They live in this kingdom?
They visit this kingdom?
The lich visits their country?

In neither country is being a lich necessarily illegal.

A paladin needs to pick his battles - ending up as a smear on the windshield of the lich's Hummer is not contributing to the cause of Good.

If the paladin lives in the kingdom, he should always strive to help the oppressed and downtrodden. He can help put Good or Neutral people in key government positions, offer alms and donations to Good organizations, and do his best to avoid attracting attention to himself.

If the paladin visits the kingdom, he should do the same, with an eye for the long-term. Will an action that brings Good right now end up bringing more Evil later? The paladin does not want to get tied down protecting some cow that he gave to a farmer.

If the lich visits the paladin's country, the paladin should mobilize the government apparatus of the nation to limit the lich's Evil influence as much as possible.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-08, 04:49 PM

I mean, I agree with you. D&D does not.

Yeah.

That's why D&D / alignment falls under "blue and orange" morality.

Segev

2017-04-08, 05:48 PM

Technically, D&D doesn't make a blanket statement about the good or evil of "smite lich; unleash demons." D&D actually allows that the situation is ambiguous, and what you do and why could be good or evil depending on what ELSE you do and why, surrounding it.

D&D really isn't "blue and orange morality;" people just like to assign things they know (or at least believe) are obviously NOT good or evil to those "teams" in D&D in order to convince themselves they've made a point that it is.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-08, 06:06 PM

D&D really isn't "blue and orange morality;" people just like to assign things they know (or at least believe) are obviously NOT good or evil to those "teams" in D&D in order to convince themselves they've made a point that it is.

You'll note that I keep saying it is in response to people who are trying to explain how morality supposedly works within D&D per alignment.

If someone's wrong about how morality works in D&D, it's them -- I'm just basing my statements on what they're saying.

And based on what they're saying, it's ultrablue and hyperorange.

Segev

2017-04-08, 06:17 PM

You'll note that I keep saying it is in response to people who are trying to explain how morality supposedly works within D&D per alignment.

If someone's wrong about how morality works in D&D, it's them -- I'm just basing my statements on what they're saying.

And based on what they're saying, it's ultrablue and hyperorange.

Fair enough, I guess. I think they're just wrong about how it works in D&D, personally.

That said, BoED and BoVD tried way too hard to serve too many masters in defining their alignment rules, and are self-contradictory to the point that using them as written leads not to Blue and Orange morality, but to no morality at all because you can't actually play with them and determine the alignment of a character who adheres to them rigorously. Or, conversely, you could find somebody playing Good strictly to BoED's letter who would also meet BoVD's criteria for "Evil to the letter," and vice-versa. Heck, playing Good by BoED's standards can lead you to violating requirements of Exalted feats and losing them. Which, contrary to what some like to argue, doesn't show that objective alignment is inherently flawed, but that the rules written in that book are not good descriptors of alignment.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-04-08, 07:49 PM

I think the problem is some people are weirdly invested in alignment and will contort themselves into all sorts of positions to try to force it to actually make sense and do a thing that it was never meant to do.

Actually that's true for D&D in general now that I think of it.

Segev

2017-04-08, 07:53 PM

You don't really have to contort to make alignment work. You just have to NOT try to ascribe hardline specific actions as absolutes within it. While I'm sure there are some actions that can never be anything but good or anything but evil, they're really, really rare, and trying to codify too many MEANS as inherently aligned leads to the paradoxes of "but I have to do the right thing, but only this proscribed means is available, and blargh paladin paradox arglebleh!"

Never mind that there is usually a third option anyway, the proscription of action is problematic as illustrated by the way some people start saying "killing is always evil," and then take it to its full logical extent to talk about absolute pacifism and the like.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-04-08, 10:40 PM

You don't really have to contort to make alignment work. You just have to NOT try to ascribe hardline specific actions as absolutes within it. While I'm sure there are some actions that can never be anything but good or anything but evil, they're really, really rare, and trying to codify too many MEANS as inherently aligned leads to the paradoxes of "but I have to do the right thing, but only this proscribed means is available, and blargh paladin paradox arglebleh!"

This is hacking the game. D&D was not built for this. On one hand I think it's kind of a noble goal to try to make D&D alignment less "stupid". But on the other hand that's what leads to 40 years of alignment arguments.

The whole "is it evil to raise a skeleton to wade into the lake and save a girl from drowning?" (it is) thing is one of the only useful or interesting sorts of things you can do with D&D alignment at all. If you're going to try to morph it into a consequentialist question then alignment is completely worthless instead of just mostly worthless.

Satinavian

2017-04-09, 12:37 AM

That said, we're talking about a storm of evil so big it outweighs the killing of a lich.
Which is why we are also talking about if and how much killing the Lich is good at all. Sure, the Lich is obviously evil. But killing Evil people is not per se good. It is even evil itself if you don't have a justification. Even killing undead is not per se good. It is just some gods who demand it. Somewhere buried deep is an exception for fiends (which can be killed without reason), but i don't know of one for Liches.

Usually you kill a Lich because of the harm he is doing and that is in line with a good character fighting for good. But there are elements of helping and protecting involved - if those are missing, is, what is left, good at all ?
You don't really have to contort to make alignment work. You just have to NOT try to ascribe hardline specific actions as absolutes within it.But that is what authors of the rules did a lot. Slavery is always evil. Using spells with an Evil descriptor is always evil. And so on. And when you take the core rules and both BoeD and BovD, you have more than enough absolute statements of specific actions that you regularly clash. Those clashes usually involve a thing that falls into two of those absolute statements at once.

Also i don't really subscribe to the third option idea. Dilemmata arise even if they are not forced in and usually come when the PCs are in over their head and can at best achieve a partial success. They are about which part. Demanding that a full success must always be on the table even if the PCs are in a bad situation because they failed before or are unprepared makes the game boring and decisions meaningless.

And the Lich thing in this thread is not even a moral dilemma. Killing the Lich is the Evil solution, letting him live the good one. For a dilemma it needs more like a god the paladin follows who demands all undead must be purged. Then you have a dilemma between folliowing the god and doing good instead of evil.

Zale

2017-04-09, 07:15 AM

From the perspective of the Paladin it probably sounds something like this:

Peasant: Oh, yeah, our king is kind of strict but he's pretty fair. Oh, also he is a lich once ate a ton of babies so he could exist forever as a mockery of all that is good and sacred in this world, thus locking those souls in eternal, hellish torment simply because this wizard feared death more than he held the sanctity of not only life, but the souls of the innocent.
Paladin: Uh. Ok, I might have to go punch your king into dust now.
Peasant: But what about the dragons he keeps from eating the kingdom?
Paladin: I'll punch them too. This is literally my job description. I'll continue punching things until the problem stops happening.

Steampunkette

2017-04-09, 08:16 AM

Keltest

2017-04-09, 09:17 AM

Still evil, in my book, unless you go after the dragons, first.

Or whatever evil fallout would happen from the Lich's death.

Eh... Stupid maybe, egotistical definitely, but not evil unless they know that they cant actually stand a chance against the threat that the lich is holding back. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity and all that.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-09, 09:30 AM

Eh... Stupid maybe, egotistical definitely, but not evil unless they know that they cant actually stand a chance against the threat that the lich is holding back. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity and all that.

There's a certain level of willful ignorance that circles back around to evil... :smallfrown:

Other problems with alignment:

* I don't care about what "a lawful good character" would do, any more than I care about what "a mage should look like". I care about what this specific character would do.

* Can a person really be evil in a vacuum? With a few sadly notable exceptions, is someone "just plain evil" and their bad actions arise from that? Or is "evil" a descriptor applied to someone because of actions they've taken?

* Along with classes and levels, it's a main culprit in blurring what D&D really is. D&D is so often presented and regarded as a sort of universal fantasy gaming system, but there are elements that demand a certain specific sort of story -- heavily archetypal characters, zero to hero, epic or even melodramatic good vs evil.

hamishspence

2017-04-09, 10:45 AM

The Book of Exalted Deeds goes into it, because while it's not consequentialist ethics, it's informed action.

A Paladin runs away from a monster on the side of a mountain and hits a patch of scree, he manages to not fall but the scree starts a rockslide and crushed a town. The Paladin did nothing wrong because it was an accident, his alignment is intact.

The paladin runs away from a monster on the side of a mountain and sees a sign warning of scree. he manages not to fall but the scree starts a rockslide and crushed a town. The Paladin may temporarily invoke wrath from the gods for his callous carelessness.

The paladin runs away from a monster on the side of a mountain and sees a sign warning that running through the area can trigger rockslides and crush the town below. He manages not to fall but does cause a rockslide and crush the town. The Paladin immediately loses access to his paladin abilities because he knowingly caused the rockslide. He may not have wanted it to happen, but he knew his actions would cause it and still did so.

If the Paladin knows killing the lich will cause more harm than good (On the order of arson at the puppy orphanage for wayward puppies with cancer) then he will have willingly committed an evil act by killing the lich. Even if the death of the Lich counts for some good.

Unless, y'know, he has no reasonable expectation that evil will come from his actions, which makes him ignorant and the consequences unintentional.
Actually that comes from BoVD, not BoED. Still valid though.

Segev

2017-04-10, 11:16 AM

I will cheerfully grant that some of the things D&D does in its "this is always [alignment]" leads to problems, because, again, we have somebody assigning specific actions in a "no exceptions" way to an alignment, for no reason other than they fiat it so.

I tend to have more fun trying to come up with ways to justify such assignments. What, precisely, is animate dead doing that makes the very act of casting it evil? The mechanical effects don't bear this up (aside, obviously, from the premise-based [evil] tag): a skeleton squad simply existing doesn't require that it be used to harm anybody. So there must be something deeper to it.

I've never found a satisfactory explanation; all the ones I've tried tend to fail to be evil, or make the spell do things that amount to using the entire output of a nuclear power plant to power a single light bulb in terms of the power reflected in the fluff compared to what the actual outcome is. Or they do things that complicate and contradict other mechanics.

But yes, there are some things which beg the question. This doesn't make the core framework poor or inherently flawed, only the specific taggings that seem ill thought-out.

Zanos

2017-04-10, 11:21 AM

I tend to have more fun trying to come up with ways to justify such assignments. What, precisely, is animate dead doing that makes the very act of casting it evil? The mechanical effects don't bear this up (aside, obviously, from the premise-based [evil] tag): a skeleton squad simply existing doesn't require that it be used to harm anybody. So there must be something deeper to it.
I think the 3.5 explanation was that spooky negative energy is antithetical to life, so a skeleton just standing around makes the prime material plane ****tier because by existing it brings spooky bad energy into the material plane. Then they went and forgot to make the Negative Energy Plane actually Evil aligned, causing a bunch of confusion forevermore.

I think undead being Evil is mostly a thematic thing. I personally don't have an issue with neutral necromancers (or even Liches) in my campaigns, although people who chase immortality usually do so because they're trying to avoid the Pit, so more "acquired" immortals are Evil than not, and people generally don't like to see their family members rotting corpses walking around.

Keltest

2017-04-10, 11:38 AM

I think the 3.5 explanation was that spooky negative energy is antithetical to life, so a skeleton just standing around makes the prime material plane ****tier because by existing it brings spooky bad energy into the material plane. Then they went and forgot to make the Negative Energy Plane actually Evil aligned, causing a bunch of confusion forevermore.

I think undead being Evil is mostly a thematic thing. I personally don't have an issue with neutral necromancers (or even Liches) in my campaigns, although people who chase immortality usually do so because they're trying to avoid the Pit, so more "acquired" immortals are Evil than not, and people generally don't like to see their family members rotting corpses walking around.

Well I mean, drenching somebody in acid would be an awful thing to do, but that doesn't make acid evil. negative Energy is still "just" energy, it isn't sentient and capable of having an alignment, it just reacts badly with life. Unless the negative energy plane is trying to break into the Prime Material plane, I don't see why it would be evil.

Keeping with the acid comparison, say theres a vat of acid. Poking holes in it is almost certainly going to damage something, and even if it doesn't, its due to luck, not because of the nature of the acid. So poking holes in that vat and removing some acid is evil, but the vat and the acid isn't evil.

Segev

2017-04-10, 12:43 PM

The "oh, it just makes the world a worse place, a tiny bit," argument is one of those "not evil enough to count" ones, to me. I admit this is subjective, but if a skeleton just standing around is adding, say, two negative puppies worth of evil to the world every day, but the dozen you've created are plowing fields that feed hundreds of people for a year, even 8,760 negative puppies per year is negligible compared to the number of puppies there are in the world and how much good the hundreds of people fed is doing.

And THAT is assuming that you're doing long-term things like this.

Why is it actively [Evil] to call up those skeletons to fight off the orcs (who're going to slaughter far more than 24 puppies' worth of good) for one day, but not to burn the orcs to death with a fireball? Collateral damage - like, say, 24 puppies that happen to be in a bag those evil orcs have collected - is not considered active evil. Not just from its sheer happenstance.

So if animate dead is to be [Evil] just for casting it, it should be causing something that Good people would have a very hard time countenancing.

An example of the kind of evil I could see lies in the creation of Slaymates. Slaymates arise from the corpses of children who die due to the betrayal of their caregivers. Presumably, such a corpse would be suitable to make one with create (greater) undead. Even without that hedge, a necromancer who wanted a Slaymate could arrange for multiple children to be so betrayed and left to die, and wait for one to spontaneously arise.

Arranging for a suitable corpse for that is inherently evil due to the base requirements.

Animate dead would need to be inherently causing some sort of gross harm that a Good person would feel awful about on a reasonably personal level. Not the equivalent of driving an SUV when you consider yourself an environmentalist. But, as I said, examples I come up with tend to be not evil enough (e.g. "it just makes the world a bit nastier a place by an imperceptible amount") or too powerful (e.g. "You're actually trapping the soul of the dead person in the skeleton.")

Koo Rehtorb

2017-04-10, 12:54 PM

You can't raise someone from the dead who's been turned into undead. Which strongly implies some monkeying around with the soul.

Segev

2017-04-10, 01:01 PM

You can't raise someone from the dead who's been turned into undead. Which strongly implies some monkeying around with the soul.

Hm, good point. It could just be a rules glitch that causes somebody killed and then true resurrected without use of the body to have their body animated without issue. It does suggest that various intelligent undead really ARE the original person, too, then. Twisted, perhaps, by the new needs of their undead forms. Though the "hate-filled" part of many of them may or may not be magically induced.

Mordar

2017-04-10, 01:14 PM

Causing more Harm than Good is wrong. In point of fact, it would probably cost a Paladin his Paladin-ish-ness as an evil act.

Well. So long as he did it knowing that it would cause more harm than good (And since Liches are SUCH evil things, we're talking about a massive amount of harm to cancel out that good, right? Like... arson at the puppy orphanage harm.

That statement gave me Paladinhaterash. From this course of reasoning comes the ability to force Paladin Fall at the drop of a hat. Because the lich isn't known as a horribly tyrant...or is a degree less bad than some other bad thing...then he gets to skate eternally or the Paladin falls. The upheaval to the kingdom of removing its non-tyrannical but still empirically evil (from D&D perspective) ruler causes the Paladin to fall. If the Paladin stops the orc raiding party, the misery the orc families back home suffer through due to the loss of their loved ones and their providers - all things the Paladin could reasonably forsee - is a net evil outcome, so the Paladin falls.

Does the time frame matter? The degree of the harm? The area under the curve? What about intent? Risk management (...may cause avalanches...)? What degree of understanding is necessary for the Paladin to count as informed or "knowing"?

And how does that all align with specific tenets of specific divinities to which a Paladin may hold faith?

The "oh, it just makes the world a worse place, a tiny bit," argument is one of those "not evil enough to count" ones, to me. I admit this is subjective, but if a skeleton just standing around is adding, say, two negative puppies worth of evil to the world every day, but the dozen you've created are plowing fields that feed hundreds of people for a year, even 8,760 negative puppies per year is negligible compared to the number of puppies there are in the world and how much good the hundreds of people fed is doing.

And THAT is assuming that you're doing long-term things like this.

Why is it actively [Evil] to call up those skeletons to fight off the orcs (who're going to slaughter far more than 24 puppies' worth of good) for one day, but not to burn the orcs to death with a fireball? Collateral damage - like, say, 24 puppies that happen to be in a bag those evil orcs have collected - is not considered active evil. Not just from its sheer happenstance.

So if animate dead is to be [Evil] just for casting it, it should be causing something that Good people would have a very hard time countenancing.

[SNIP Slaymates]

Animate dead would need to be inherently causing some sort of gross harm that a Good person would feel awful about on a reasonably personal level. Not the equivalent of driving an SUV when you consider yourself an environmentalist. But, as I said, examples I come up with tend to be not evil enough (e.g. "it just makes the world a bit nastier a place by an imperceptible amount") or too powerful (e.g. "You're actually trapping the soul of the dead person in the skeleton.")

I believe the inherent evil is animating dead is the fact that the action/spell/whatever isn't constructing a being from raw materials (like say making a Golem...btw, are Bone Golems evil?)...it is desecrating the remains of the dead, ripping them from their resting place without consent (since consent from the dead can actually be acquired in D&D that isn't quite as funny as it seems) and forcing them to perform slave labor in perpetuity. Usurping the natural order of things (insofar as there can be a natural order of things when magic is involved) - or at least usurping the cycle of life and death - and then layering on enslavement. The evil should be greater with the creation of higher-order undead (since you could argue that more of the deceased's mind or spirit or whatever is required to provide some autonomous ability), but that is probably a different discussion.

So why is the fireball a less-evil means of handling the orcs than animating some corpses? Because the corpses didn't provide informed consent, I guess :smallwink:

Now we just have to wait for the elemental sentience supporters to come and claim that the fireball was also enslavement and we'll be able to reach new levels of absurdity conversation.

- M

Feddlefew

2017-04-10, 01:43 PM

Hm, good point. It could just be a rules glitch that causes somebody killed and then true resurrected without use of the body to have their body animated without issue. It does suggest that various intelligent undead really ARE the original person, too, then. Twisted, perhaps, by the new needs of their undead forms. Though the "hate-filled" part of many of them may or may not be magically induced.

I think there's pretty strong, if circumstantial, evidence that D&D creatures have 2 components to their souls, one of which is intelligent and passes into the afterlife, and one which animates the individual's body and lingers around the material plane after death. It would explain what the force animating unintelligent undead is, and why the various body surfing methods have so many weird side-effects.

Segev

2017-04-10, 01:49 PM

I think there's pretty strong, if circumstantial, evidence that D&D creatures have 2 components to their souls, one of which is intelligent and passes into the afterlife, and one which animates the individual's body and lingers around the material plane after death. It would explain what the force animating unintelligent undead is, and why the various body surfing methods have so many weird side-effects.

Could you provide a few examples of those weird side-effects, please? I'm drawing a blank.

Herobizkit

2017-04-12, 04:04 AM

ErebusVonMori

2017-04-12, 07:52 AM

Yeah the whole negative energy is inimical to the plane thing I've always dealt with by casting equal numbers of positive energy spells. So it's possible to offset this completely.

Segev

2017-04-12, 10:18 AM

God/dess bless Paladin threads.

A lich who rules fairly, while presently not being a source of destruction, will inevitably become a source of destruction as that is the way of Entropy and all Undeath. Best someone stops it before it reaches that point.

I prefer there be an explanation as to why this is and how it works, rather than just a blanket declaration. Is there some diabolus ex machina which will contort reality to twist all his efforts towards maximum harm? Is he being mind controlled by his state to be unable to choose wisely when he wants to do "good" things? Is he cursed to have his ability to choose good-aligned action eroded? Those are all rather unsatisfying to me.

I'm okay with ever-increasing natural tendency, urges, etc. towards evil and harmful ends, but such things should remain influences the lich can learn to master. In fact, liches are the sort of being who would master such things: iron determination is one of their hallmarks.

So I prefer that the ritual creating the phylactery genuinely involve something so horrific that nobody could possibly say, "I mean well, and my well-meaning justifies this action," and not have it utterly stain their soul/reveal that they've strayed well into Evil alignment just to talk themselves into this. Failing that (which is a hard bar to meet, I acknowledge), I prefer something about their continued existence genuinely require ongoing harm, ongoing evil, preferably willfully committed. 5e gives us soul-consumption on a regular basis. I feel that a bit hackneyed, but it does qualify, at least.

Keltest

2017-04-12, 11:22 AM

I prefer there be an explanation as to why this is and how it works, rather than just a blanket declaration. Is there some diabolus ex machina which will contort reality to twist all his efforts towards maximum harm? Is he being mind controlled by his state to be unable to choose wisely when he wants to do "good" things? Is he cursed to have his ability to choose good-aligned action eroded? Those are all rather unsatisfying to me.

I'm okay with ever-increasing natural tendency, urges, etc. towards evil and harmful ends, but such things should remain influences the lich can learn to master. In fact, liches are the sort of being who would master such things: iron determination is one of their hallmarks.

So I prefer that the ritual creating the phylactery genuinely involve something so horrific that nobody could possibly say, "I mean well, and my well-meaning justifies this action," and not have it utterly stain their soul/reveal that they've strayed well into Evil alignment just to talk themselves into this. Failing that (which is a hard bar to meet, I acknowledge), I prefer something about their continued existence genuinely require ongoing harm, ongoing evil, preferably willfully committed. 5e gives us soul-consumption on a regular basis. I feel that a bit hackneyed, but it does qualify, at least.

He's all-powerful and immortal, has few to no connections to mortality, and has no being (like a god, who cannot bend the way a normal being can) to keep a check on how he uses his power. While I generally don't care for cynicism, given the time scale involved, the question isn't so much if he will abuse his power, as it is how long it will take him to grow apathetic enough towards mortality to do so.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-12, 11:36 AM

I prefer there be an explanation as to why this is and how it works, rather than just a blanket declaration. Is there some diabolus ex machina which will contort reality to twist all his efforts towards maximum harm? Is he being mind controlled by his state to be unable to choose wisely when he wants to do "good" things? Is he cursed to have his ability to choose good-aligned action eroded? Those are all rather unsatisfying to me.

I'm okay with ever-increasing natural tendency, urges, etc. towards evil and harmful ends, but such things should remain influences the lich can learn to master. In fact, liches are the sort of being who would master such things: iron determination is one of their hallmarks.

So I prefer that the ritual creating the phylactery genuinely involve something so horrific that nobody could possibly say, "I mean well, and my well-meaning justifies this action," and not have it utterly stain their soul/reveal that they've strayed well into Evil alignment just to talk themselves into this. Failing that (which is a hard bar to meet, I acknowledge), I prefer something about their continued existence genuinely require ongoing harm, ongoing evil, preferably willfully committed. 5e gives us soul-consumption on a regular basis. I feel that a bit hackneyed, but it does qualify, at least.

I will say this (as much as I prefer explicit facts over meta-facts)... "becoming and/or remaining a lich requires the individual to do some really really bad stuff" is a much less troublesome to me than "a lich is evil because a lich is evil and the universe will contort to make it so".

He's all-powerful and immortal, has few to no connections to mortality, and has no being (like a god, who cannot bend the way a normal being can) to keep a check on how he uses his power. While I generally don't care for cynicism, given the time scale involved, the question isn't so much if he will abuse his power, as it is how long it will take him to grow apathetic enough towards mortality to do so.

Maybe this is just me, but... that seems to be flirting with "immortality is inherently evil".

Keltest

2017-04-12, 11:53 AM

Maybe this is just me, but... that seems to be flirting with "immortality is inherently evil".

Not quite. A lich is, by definition, somebody who either can justify, or does not care about doing, an unspeakably evil act. That alone already puts them into dangerous territory as regards being willing to abuse their power. On top of that, they don't have any sort of oversight (for the most part. Theoretically clerics can become liches too), so theyre the only one capable of actually restraining themselves. So its a case where the lich, no matter how well intentioned, is willing to trample their principals if pushed far enough and will "live" forever. Even if you don't subscribe to the idea that being an undead monstrosity would make it inherently harder for them to care about the living, odds are that somewhere in their infinite lifespan, something will push them to a point where they react.

Basically, in my view, becoming a Lich is like putting on the One Ring. Yeah, you could do a lot of good with it, but you've already opened a big chink in your moral armor just by accepting it, and that chink will eventually let something in.

Zanos

2017-04-12, 11:58 AM

That statement gave me Paladinhaterash. From this course of reasoning comes the ability to force Paladin Fall at the drop of a hat. Because the lich isn't known as a horribly tyrant...or is a degree less bad than some other bad thing...then he gets to skate eternally or the Paladin falls. The upheaval to the kingdom of removing its non-tyrannical but still empirically evil (from D&D perspective) ruler causes the Paladin to fall. If the Paladin stops the orc raiding party, the misery the orc families back home suffer through due to the loss of their loved ones and their providers - all things the Paladin could reasonably forsee - is a net evil outcome, so the Paladin falls.

Does the time frame matter? The degree of the harm? The area under the curve? What about intent? Risk management (...may cause avalanches...)? What degree of understanding is necessary for the Paladin to count as informed or "knowing"?

And how does that all align with specific tenets of specific divinities to which a Paladin may hold faith?
I certainly won't be running any games where a Paladin falls for smiting a lich. The consequences of deposing a ruler are so vast and unpredictable that it shouldn't even be relevant. And violence isn't inherently Evil anyway. If the Paladin slays an Evil tyrant and that results in a brutal civil war between the remnants of the Evil government and the populace, the Paladin isn't Evil going to fall because of the ensuing violence. I mean, he should probably help the rebellion topel the remainder of the Government, but he isn't going to fall because he's a crusader that destroys Evil, not a civic planner.

He's all-powerful and immortal, has few to no connections to mortality, and has no being (like a god, who cannot bend the way a normal being can) to keep a check on how he uses his power. While I generally don't care for cynicism, given the time scale involved, the question isn't so much if he will abuse his power, as it is how long it will take him to grow apathetic enough towards mortality to do so.
This would apply to any immortal who isn't a divine caster. Although to be fair D&D has always had a touch of that in it's lore. I guess it's partially justified in that living forever isn't really a major concern for most people since afterlives pretty obviously are real; it's not a matter of faith when you can chitchat with your deity. So the only reason for most people to seek out immortality is because they're trying to avoid the pit. Only Elves are allowed to live for a long time while being Good. :smalltongue:

Segev

2017-04-12, 12:26 PM

I will say this (as much as I prefer explicit facts over meta-facts)... "becoming and/or remaining a lich requires the individual to do some really really bad stuff" is a much less troublesome to me than "a lich is evil because a lich is evil and the universe will contort to make it so".I still think you're not quite grasping that this particular "meta-fact" - "becoming and/or remaining a lich requires the individual to do some really really bad stuff" - is supposed to be nailed down to a hard fact - e.g. "becoming a lich requires wearing white after labor day / remaining a lich requires stealing 40 cakes, which is as many as 4 tens...and that's just awful" - when you actually implement it in your setting. The flexibility is so you can set it for your table.

I find it acceptable in writing a monster entry in D&D. I would find it less so if it were, say, written into a Dresden Files novel without specifying it. "Just take our word for it, it's never forgivable" is unconvincing when there is, somewhere, a concrete example of it having been done.

For a lich in the MM, it's a theoretical construct. The creature in the MM isn't a specific being. It's an archetype, a (literal) template to be applied to specific cases.

Honestly, if you wanted to discuss whether the specific lich in the OP did something evil that makes smiting him worthwhile in spite of all the trouble, it would help if we brainstormed until we reached a consensus on something Evil Enough. Do we want to go that way?

Maybe this is just me, but... that seems to be flirting with "immortality is inherently evil".It does seem that way. Especially since there's also room to argue that, even if this lich did do something horrific to become one, he also has eternity to come to regret and wish to repent of that action.

Zanos

2017-04-12, 01:24 PM

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-12, 01:32 PM

Segev

2017-04-12, 01:47 PM

I don't like it because it implies that there are acts which cannot be forgiven or redeemed, which is flatly rejected by pretty much any primer on alignment in 3.5, which all suggest that even the most heinous of villains could be redeemed under certain circumstances. Considering that these settings already contain beings that are literally made of pure Evil, then whatever the Lich does can't possibly be as bad as them. I don't buy it.

Assuming liches must be Evil, I prefer the explanation that negative energy is Evil, so making your body literally run on it means your Evil because of the physical/magical energies that animate your carcass, even if you aren't stealing 40 cakes.

To be fair, it doesn't quite say "unredeemable." All it says in the rules is "unspeakable." Given that it doubtless can be literally spoken of, this is a superlative adjective, not to be taken literally.

I don't think the act needs to be unforgivable, particularly given that such would beg the question as to whether unforgivable acts are a meaningful concept. What it does need to be is so abominably evil that you cannot possibly do it and remain non-Evil. The willingness to do this act, for any reason (no matter how compelling or "Good"), proves you to be utterly and completely Evil.

Maybe you can be redeemed later, but going into it with that thought only makes redemption harder.

Anyway, as the act is unspecified, it lies with players and DMs to come up with. We could try doing so here, if we liked.

One possibility I've come up with: Through divination magics, find the greatest sources of unfulfilled destiny in the world, and snuff them out. The benefit they would have been to the world becomes the fuel that keeps your life-force bound firmly to your phylactery. This could be achieved by finding one great hero who has yet to mature and slaughtering him, luring a nascent party into being your quest-fulfillers as part of their rise, and, before they can squander too much of that rich destiny, sacrificing them in your ritual at a moment of great trust, or any number of other flavorfully villainous acts designed to harvest that destiny for yourself.

Perhaps it's a critical threshold of unfulfilled destiny you need, and quantity can make up for quality: wipe out a kingdom or two and it will suffice. After all, killing that as-yet-unrealized Great Hero might only work BECAUSE he was going to save a few kingdoms from doom.

Zanos

2017-04-12, 02:10 PM

To me, that's not a satisfactory setting element. It's like an assertion that "swords are inherently evil, anyone who carries one is evil", or that radio waves are inherently evil, or whatever.
Radios waves aren't inherently antithetical to all life or produced by suffering, though. I understand that you don't like alignment being a cosmological force or having objective morality in the setting, but it keys off of it. You're gonna have to change some assumptions if you want Evil/Good to vary based on circumstances, point of view, and experiences.

To highlight:
Devils and Demons exist.
Devils and Demons are empowered when mortals commit Evil.
If doing something Evil produces a tangible result, it's possible to determine what acts are and are not Evil.

If you make what is and is not Evil vary between cultures and point of view, you kind of have to throw out that Outsiders are empowered by Evil acts, which is a big assumption of the setting, at least where the lower planes are concerned. And that's fine, many people don't use alignment in their D&D games at all. Presumably they don't involve outsiders much. Either way I understand that it's not your preference, but you don't have to continually insult the baseline setting by asserting that it's an inherently ridiculous cosmology.

So to get to the Lich:
Assuming the Lich is feeding off of energy which is involved in some aspect of Evil->Power, then he's effectively feeding off the world's suffering by feeding on that energy, or bringing more of that energy into the world by walking around, both of which are pretty messed up.

Although then we get back into what Segev was talking about, with the lich producing 270 negapuppies per year passively, he should be able to offset it. Sort of works in 3.5. Becoming a lich is Evil but you don't necessarily stay that way.

4e worked fine with this interestingly enough, to become a regular lich you had to pledge your soul to Orcus, demon prince of the undead. So he probably screwed it up pretty bad. Becoming a Lich without his assistance left your alignment intact. So if you were an Orcus brand Lich the suggested scenario simply wouldn't exist, whatever Orcus did to your soul and mind rendered it impossible for you to choose to rule fairly. Perhaps making your body run on negative energy like 5e does has a similar effect?

To be fair, it doesn't quite say "unredeemable." All it says in the rules is "unspeakable." Given that it doubtless can be literally spoken of, this is a superlative adjective, not to be taken literally.

I don't think the act needs to be unforgivable, particularly given that such would beg the question as to whether unforgivable acts are a meaningful concept. What it does need to be is so abominably evil that you cannot possibly do it and remain non-Evil. The willingness to do this act, for any reason (no matter how compelling or "Good"), proves you to be utterly and completely Evil.

Maybe you can be redeemed later, but going into it with that thought only makes redemption harder.

Anyway, as the act is unspecified, it lies with players and DMs to come up with. We could try doing so here, if we liked.

One possibility I've come up with: Through divination magics, find the greatest sources of unfulfilled destiny in the world, and snuff them out. The benefit they would have been to the world becomes the fuel that keeps your life-force bound firmly to your phylactery. This could be achieved by finding one great hero who has yet to mature and slaughtering him, luring a nascent party into being your quest-fulfillers as part of their rise, and, before they can squander too much of that rich destiny, sacrificing them in your ritual at a moment of great trust, or any number of other flavorfully villainous acts designed to harvest that destiny for yourself.

Perhaps it's a critical threshold of unfulfilled destiny you need, and quantity can make up for quality: wipe out a kingdom or two and it will suffice. After all, killing that as-yet-unrealized Great Hero might only work BECAUSE he was going to save a few kingdoms from doom.
It doesn't say it's irredeemable, but it's been assumed that it essentially "locks" your alignment to Evil. The issue I have with this is that pretty much any act we can think of is gonna be pennies compared to what Evil outsiders get up to on a daily basis. What single action is worth locking your alignment to Evil permanently, when a Devil or Demon who commits every kind of imaginable atrocity on a massive scale every single day for thousands of years does not have the same restriction?

And assuming that this act does exist, wouldn't these Evil Outsiders want to get in on this action themselves or try to get as many people as possible to perform it, and therefore make themselves also permanently Evil?

Knaight

2017-04-12, 02:29 PM

Maybe this is just me, but... that seems to be flirting with "immortality is inherently evil".

It's a bit closer to "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely", with the added side of how the power can corrupt arbitrarily slowly and will still get there in the end.

Segev

2017-04-12, 02:29 PM

It doesn't say it's irredeemable, but it's been assumed that it essentially "locks" your alignment to Evil.I don't think that's necessary. I'd say what is needed is that it be bad enough to "set" your alignment to Evil.

Remember, changing alignment isn't supposed to be easy, as a general rule. Anything which can hard-set your alignment to Evil, essentially "burying the needle" on the metaphorical alignmeter with just that one act, is going to be so terrible, so awful (by definition) that nobody who wasn't Evil would be able to go through with it.

This actually gives some potential criteria. It obviously must require premeditation, so that it can't be "in the heat of the moment" (which is a huge mitigating factor in a lot of sins). It has to be deliberate, and its nature must be such that somebody doing it has to understand just what it is they're doing and why, so that there is no way to perform it "innocently."

And assuming that this act does exist, wouldn't these Evil Outsiders want to get in on this action themselves or try to get as many people as possible to perform it, and therefore make themselves also permanently Evil?What's to say they don't? Perhaps that's why demons and devils enjoy encouraging casters to seek lichdom.

Then again, perhaps they dislike it because, despite the horrific stain it places on a soul, liches generally don't get added to the lower planes' roster since they never go to the afterlife.

Keltest

2017-04-12, 02:37 PM

What's to say they don't? Perhaps that's why demons and devils enjoy encouraging casters to seek lichdom.

Then again, perhaps they dislike it because, despite the horrific stain it places on a soul, liches generally don't get added to the lower planes' roster since they never go to the afterlife.

They would probably see it as an investment. A lich can do a lot of evil in its lifetime, empowering the forces of Evil, and if somebody stops the lich and destroys them, then they get the lich's empowered soul.

Segev

2017-04-12, 02:46 PM

They would probably see it as an investment. A lich can do a lot of evil in its lifetime, empowering the forces of Evil, and if somebody stops the lich and destroys them, then they get the lich's empowered soul.

Potentially. Which would point back to the first sentence in your quote: maybe they do encourage it. It doesn't seem like an EASY task, either, since it requires minimum CL 11.

Beleriphon

2017-04-12, 04:32 PM

I find it acceptable in writing a monster entry in D&D. I would find it less so if it were, say, written into a Dresden Files novel without specifying it. "Just take our word for it, it's never forgivable" is unconvincing when there is, somewhere, a concrete example of it having been done.

Especially since necromancy has received a description and why its bad. Using necromancy to keep oneself a monstrous undead state seems like the kind of thing that is evil in the world of Harry Dresden. D&D is a little bit broader, but still wants a lich to be evil

For a lich in the MM, it's a theoretical construct. The creature in the MM isn't a specific being. It's an archetype, a (literal) template to be applied to specific cases.

Honestly, if you wanted to discuss whether the specific lich in the OP did something evil that makes smiting him worthwhile in spite of all the trouble, it would help if we brainstormed until we reached a consensus on something Evil Enough. Do we want to go that way?

It does seem that way. Especially since there's also room to argue that, even if this lich did do something horrific to become one, he also has eternity to come to regret and wish to repent of that action.

Which is fair, but I kind of get the impression that only an evil type would willingly become a lich. The kind of person that probably doesn't care about what they have to do to achieve their goals. If you look at the D&D methods of becoming immortal you can become a lich, an elan, or a few other things. All of those things involve giving something up, usually accumulated personal power. The lich does give up accumulated personal power, they give up their life and in exchange become more powerful and immortal.

Segev

2017-04-12, 04:59 PM

I kind of get the impression that only an evil type would willingly become a lich. The kind of person that probably doesn't care about what they have to do to achieve their goals. If you look at the D&D methods of becoming immortal you can become a lich, an elan, or a few other things. All of those things involve giving something up, usually accumulated personal power. The lich does give up accumulated personal power, they give up their life and in exchange become more powerful and immortal.

The first sentence is kind of begging the question. I mean, yes, that's true, but it's only true because it involves horrible evil to become a lich.

If the ritual to make your phylactery merely required magical knowledge and money, and there was no specifically evil act required in becoming a lich, then the kind of person who became a lich would be the kind of person who doesn't mind looking skeletal in order to live forever, and is dedicated enough to learn sufficient magic to pull it off.

It is INTENDED that becoming a lich require you to be the kind of person who doesn't care what he has to do (to other people) to achieve his goals. (Or to oneself, as long as that doesn't involve self-sacrifice of things you consider actually important.) Which is why the rules call out that there is something in the phylactery-creation process that is definitely unspeakably evil. Something you stoop to doing which only that kind of person - the Evil kind of person - would do.

Mordar

2017-04-12, 06:38 PM

Which is fair, but I kind of get the impression that only an evil type would willingly become a lich. The kind of person that probably doesn't care about what they have to do to achieve their goals. If you look at the D&D methods of becoming immortal you can become a lich, an elan, or a few other things. All of those things involve giving something up, usually accumulated personal power. The lich does give up accumulated personal power, they give up their life and in exchange become more powerful and immortal.

The first sentence is kind of begging the question. I mean, yes, that's true, but it's only true because it involves horrible evil to become a lich.

If the ritual to make your phylactery merely required magical knowledge and money, and there was no specifically evil act required in becoming a lich, then the kind of person who became a lich would be the kind of person who doesn't mind looking skeletal in order to live forever, and is dedicated enough to learn sufficient magic to pull it off.

It is INTENDED that becoming a lich require you to be the kind of person who doesn't care what he has to do (to other people) to achieve his goals. (Or to oneself, as long as that doesn't involve self-sacrifice of things you consider actually important.) Which is why the rules call out that there is something in the phylactery-creation process that is definitely unspeakably evil. Something you stoop to doing which only that kind of person - the Evil kind of person - would do.

I wonder if the undead-ness is perhaps a key element here. At the time of my entry into the game (AD&D, early 1980s) I don't believe there were any undead that weren't mindless or evil...I may be mistaken, but I think that was the case. Can anyone with access and unblocked web privileges confirm (curse you Websense!)? So while it (undeadedness) isn't quite the same flavor of evil as demons or devils, it does have its own brand name? Heck, it may even be true that the "mindless" undead were aligned evil.

I think that aligns with the ideas of either destruction of the soul or enslavement of the mind/body beyond even the "peace" of death...so that the process of becoming undead was so antithetical to life and so infused with malice that the resultant creature is by the nature of its creation evil. [That kind of supports the idea that raising 12 skeletons to fight orcs is evil while fireballing them is not...necessarily].

So perhaps the lich faces a double-dose of evil-in-process. First they must do some horrible deed(s) and then they must willingly surrender/destroy the core of potential goodness (soul) and live out their days as an embodiment of anti-life?

- M

ErebusVonMori

2017-04-12, 06:50 PM

Almarck

2017-04-12, 10:10 PM

There's another thing to consider, there's no guarantee the lich has actually done this unspeakable act, lv 20 LN Dread Necromancers exist in some settings, still LN, the act is in the ritual not making the phylactery and you don't have to do the ritual for that. Throw in someone deliberately offsetting their negative energy production with positive energy production and find me the evil there?

They're also not traditional liches in much the same way the archlich from 4e was not a real lich.

and were made after the original template had essentially been exported to the over ages to the general cultural consciousness.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-12, 10:19 PM

Radios waves aren't inherently antithetical to all life or produced by suffering, though. I understand that you don't like alignment being a cosmological force or having objective morality in the setting, but it keys off of it. You're gonna have to change some assumptions if you want Evil/Good to vary based on circumstances, point of view, and experiences.

Try "radioactivity is inherently evil", then. Heck, there are people who act like it is, as if it were some sort of glow-in-the-dark demon.

Exposure to high levels of particle radiation, gamma rays, or X-rats is pretty much a death sentence.

But they're just physical phenomena in the universe, dangerous, but also potentially very useful... and certainly not inherently evil. Applied with care and precision, radiation can kill cancer cells and save a patient's life.

Likewise, I could see healing magic that uses "negative energy" applied with care and precision, to weaken, destroy, or drive out the illness from a sick person (imagine a spell targeting just the "billion minuscule demons" causing a sickness, while leaving the patient unharmed).

NichG

2017-04-12, 11:22 PM

Zanos

2017-04-13, 12:04 AM

Zanos' comment that a paladin 'isn't a civic planner' and so shouldn't fall for proactively doing things that result in great evil, just because the method of that result isn't in the paladin's job description suggests implicitly that the paladin is absolved of responsibility because someone else is taking it - e.g. their deity. So in that case, where the paladin is told 'go smite the lich and damn the consequences', rather than the paladin falling, the deity should fall. Since they're the one instructing their subordinates to prioritize killing the undead over other peoples' lives. The paladin might be able to use the excuse that their dogma said 'what I did is okay', but that doesn't excuse the source of that dogma.

Because otherwise, the idea that people just can't be bothered to care about the consequences of their actions to others is sounding a lot like the D&D description of the 'Evil' alignment. In this case, not because the consequences made the act evil, but rather the lack of concern or consideration for those consequences on the part of the paladin or their deity. The kingdom might not have been collateral damage of the paladin's attack, but it certainly can be counted as collateral damage of the deity's creation of a squad of 'evil-seeking missles' and then failing to aim them carefully to avoid civilian casualties.
Considering the number of Evil characters of power, and the general damage caused when one vacates a power vacuum, making a paladin fall because they emptied a power vacuum pretty much means they all sit on their hands all day while Evil tyrants are free to do as they please because deposing them obviously causes problems as Evil empires tend not to collapse gracefully.

And it's not a "lack of concern." Obviously the paladin and his organization should attempt to mitigate any resulting conflict...which probably involves the Paladin smiting the rest of the Evil government and uniting the good citizens with their massive charisma bonus. But letting tyrants be tyrants because they're totally not as bad as that resulting conflict is ridiculous. Making a paladin fall for doing something about Evil is even more so.

Again, conflict is not Evil. Two Neutral or even Good nations can wage war without either side jeopardizing their alignment.

NichG

2017-04-13, 01:11 AM

Considering the number of Evil characters of power, and the general damage caused when one vacates a power vacuum, making a paladin fall because they emptied a power vacuum pretty much means they all sit on their hands all day while Evil tyrants are free to do as they please because deposing them obviously causes problems as Evil empires tend not to collapse gracefully.

And it's not a "lack of concern." Obviously the paladin and his organization should attempt to mitigate any resulting conflict...which probably involves the Paladin smiting the rest of the Evil government and uniting the good citizens with their massive charisma bonus. But letting tyrants be tyrants because they're totally not as bad as that resulting conflict is ridiculous. Making a paladin fall for doing something about Evil is even more so.

Again, conflict is not Evil. Two Neutral or even Good nations can wage war without either side jeopardizing their alignment.

The thing is, people who have other tools in their toolkit than 'kill the evil guy' can dismantle the evil empire without causing nearly as much damage. Paladins as you've depicted them, however, have one hammer in their toolkit: 'smite evil'.

So the question comes down to, whose job is it to decide when 'smite evil' is the right tool, versus when say sending in a bunch of bards to support an organized rebellion is the right tool, versus when leaving the guy alone for another century until global geopolitics calms down is the thing to do? In a secular situation, these decisions would be the responsibilities of heads of government. The king chooses whether to send the diplomat or the soldier, etc. When something goes wrong because of that decision, it's still someone's fault - meaning that the king has a responsibility to make the best decision possible. Of course they could still make mistakes, and its not evil to make mistakes. But, say, desperately holding onto power even after a mistake demonstrates that the ruler's judgement isn't so great would be a form of Evil - putting ones-self as the executor of power over the needs of those around them.

When the paladin makes the decision in this situation: 'this is my job, not someone else's', they are taking that responsibility onto themselves. If they say 'I don't really understand what's going on, bad things could happen as a result, but I'm going to act anyhow' then its their fault when bad things happen. Again, making a mistake isn't evil. But willfully denying that fault and continuing to act harmfully despite it could be Evil - the same kind of hubris as the acts of tyrants.

An alternative, the one I'm proposing as a resolution of this, is that the paladin doesn't actually have agency to decide who to smite and who not to smite. When the paladin arrives in the kingdom ruled by the immortal lich and then goes to assassinate the king, its because the paladin's hierarchy (ultimately ending in the dogma or direct revelations of their deity) gave an order: go here and kill the lich. The paladin may still bear some responsibility as a moral entity, but so does the dogma which declares an absolute decision process without consideration for collateral. That is to say, the paladin's deity is the 'king' who sent a soldier rather than a diplomat. As a deity, they can see more of the details of the world than the paladin can, and so it makes sense for them to be in a position to presume responsibility. But if the deity fails to actually take responsibility, that's that same tyrannical hubris again.

Or, you could just accept that there is an intrinsically self-serving flaw in the reasoning 'I must always be the one to solve every problem' combined with 'I don't have a responsibility to solve problems correctly'. That's player reasoning because the meta-game makes them the center of attention and the only forms of agency in the world. But it's not reasonable for the (good-aligned) characters within the fiction itself to think that way.

Beleriphon

2017-04-13, 08:54 AM

Try "radioactivity is inherently evil", then. Heck, there are people who act like it is, as if it were some sort of glow-in-the-dark demon.

Exposure to high levels of particle radiation, gamma rays, or X-rats is pretty much a death sentence.

But they're just physical phenomena in the universe, dangerous, but also potentially very useful... and certainly not inherently evil. Applied with care and precision, radiation can kill cancer cells and save a patient's life.

Likewise, I could see healing magic that uses "negative energy" applied with care and precision, to weaken, destroy, or drive out the illness from a sick person (imagine a spell targeting just the "billion minuscule demons" causing a sickness, while leaving the patient unharmed).

Negative energy in D&D is not radiation, that would be more akin to necrotic damage type and the way it is described. That being said I think the major issue is that a lich is bypassing the entire cycle of life and death, even other immortal creatures are just creatures that can't die of old age. A lich is usually a creature that is trying to get out of dying of old age, and preventing their soul from going to its earned afterlife if something happens to kill them.

Add to the fact that D&D explicitly says to become a lich requires an act of unspeakable evil. I take the term to mean something beyond the pale of what would be considered forgivable. Now that's a 5E specific description. AD&D uses the following:

The lich is not a thing of this world. Although it was once a living creature, it has entered into an unnatural existence. In order to become a lich, the wizard must prepare its phylactery by the use of the enchant an item, magic jar, permanency and reincarnation spells. The phylactery, which can be almost any manner of object, must be of the finest craftsmanship and materials with a value of not less than 1,500 gold pieces per level of the wizard. Once this object is created, the would-be lich must craft a potion of extreme toxicity, which is then enchanted with the following spells: wraithform, permanency, cone of cold, feign death, and animate dead. When next the moon is full, the potion is imbibed. Rather than death, the potion causes the wizard to undergo a transformation into its new state. A system shock survival throw is required, with failure indicating an error in the creation of the potion which kills the wizard and renders him forever dead.

What's interesting is that the process isn't inherently evil in AD&D, but most of liches are evil since generally speaking only evil spellcasters are interested in that kind of power.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-13, 09:25 AM

Negative energy in D&D is not radiation, that would be more akin to necrotic damage type and the way it is described. That being said I think the major issue is that a lich is bypassing the entire cycle of life and death, even other immortal creatures are just creatures that can't die of old age. A lich is usually a creature that is trying to get out of dying of old age, and preventing their soul from going to its earned afterlife if something happens to kill them.

I've never been able to understand the idea that there's something evil or objectionable or offensive about someone trying to make themselves as immortal as possible. In and of itself, all questions of method and means aside, immortality as a desire/goal in no way seems wrong.

Add to the fact that D&D explicitly says to become a lich requires an act of unspeakable evil. I take the term to mean something beyond the pale of what would be considered forgivable. Now that's a 5E specific description. AD&D uses the following:

The lich is not a thing of this world. Although it was once a living creature, it has entered into an unnatural existence. In order to become a lich, the wizard must prepare its phylactery by the use of the enchant an item, magic jar, permanency and reincarnation spells. The phylactery, which can be almost any manner of object, must be of the finest craftsmanship and materials with a value of not less than 1,500 gold pieces per level of the wizard. Once this object is created, the would-be lich must craft a potion of extreme toxicity, which is then enchanted with the following spells: wraithform, permanency, cone of cold, feign death, and animate dead. When next the moon is full, the potion is imbibed. Rather than death, the potion causes the wizard to undergo a transformation into its new state. A system shock survival throw is required, with failure indicating an error in the creation of the potion which kills the wizard and renders him forever dead.

What's interesting is that the process isn't inherently evil in AD&D, but most of liches are evil since generally speaking only evil spellcasters are interested in that kind of power.

Why is that the default assumption? (That only evil people want that sort of power.)

Segev

2017-04-13, 09:40 AM

A responsible paladin would either have a Good (and preferably Lawful) ruler or group ready to take up the reins of power, or would be prepared to do so, himself, before he went in and did greater harm to the oppressed society by removing the controls on the petty officials and sparking war. There's a reason the typical "fight the evil overlord" story, when not told in truncated movie short-form, involves working one's way up the sorting algorithm of evil: the hero is removing lower-level corrupt figures first, and can establish peace and security at each level on his way up. He's practically leading a full-scale revolution by the time he takes out the Emperor of Evil.

Try "radioactivity is inherently evil", then. Heck, there are people who act like it is, as if it were some sort of glow-in-the-dark demon.In the setting for the novel The Song of Swords, demons are literally nuclear explosions that magically gained life and sentience at the moment of their detonation. I'm sure there's some explanation as to why, but I never got that far. They're pretty terrifying, though.

I could see healing magic that uses "negative energy" applied with care and precision, to weaken, destroy, or drive out the illness from a sick person (imagine a spell targeting just the "billion minuscule demons" causing a sickness, while leaving the patient unharmed).A concept for a necromancy spell that ensures immunity to disease by flooding the caster with a weak amount of negative energy to kill off bioorganisms that are foreign to him (and, perhaps, bolster those which are part of him that die and shouldn't) is one I've toyed with.

A counter-argument, though: disease and plague and suppurating corruption are frequently associated with necromancy (and, by extension, undeath). Perhaps the various organisms responsible for decay and disease are more negative energy than positive energy beings. It would be a major but oddly insignificant paradigm shift to declare disease to be undead "microbes" rather than living ones. Cancer would be part of the patient's own body turning undead. (Heck, see the Mother Cyst and its Necrotic children in Libris Mortis for an example.) Colds and flus and more serious diseases would be negative energy miasmas that your living body has to devote its positive energy fuel to quashing, which is why you feel so drained when sick. Ghoul Fever being a disease would make perfect sense, coming from an infection of an undead bite.

Still doesn't quite rise to "making undead is inherently evil," any more than "radiation is inherently evil," but making undead is like making a full-on disease-elemental even if it can't spread its infection (any more than a 6-foot-tall bacterium could spread infection into equally-scaled humanoids).

Koo Rehtorb

2017-04-13, 10:05 AM

Before 3e necromancy was the healing school.

halfeye

2017-04-13, 10:56 AM

Well, one possibility that is being danced around (though Segev brought it up earlier in mentioning the trope that angels are worse than demons) is that the moral failing here can be with the gods of Good themselves.

Zanos' comment that a paladin 'isn't a civic planner' and so shouldn't fall for proactively doing things that result in great evil, just because the method of that result isn't in the paladin's job description suggests implicitly that the paladin is absolved of responsibility because someone else is taking it - e.g. their deity. So in that case, where the paladin is told 'go smite the lich and damn the consequences', rather than the paladin falling, the deity should fall. Since they're the one instructing their subordinates to prioritize killing the undead over other peoples' lives. The paladin might be able to use the excuse that their dogma said 'what I did is okay', but that doesn't excuse the source of that dogma.

Because otherwise, the idea that people just can't be bothered to care about the consequences of their actions to others is sounding a lot like the D&D description of the 'Evil' alignment. In this case, not because the consequences made the act evil, but rather the lack of concern or consideration for those consequences on the part of the paladin or their deity. The kingdom might not have been collateral damage of the paladin's attack, but it certainly can be counted as collateral damage of the deity's creation of a squad of 'evil-seeking missles' and then failing to aim them carefully to avoid civilian casualties.

We seem to be back to moral relativity. If the gods of good aren't, then good isn't.

A concept for a necromancy spell that ensures immunity to disease by flooding the caster with a weak amount of negative energy to kill off bioorganisms that are foreign to him (and, perhaps, bolster those which are part of him that die and shouldn't) is one I've toyed with.

A counter-argument, though: disease and plague and suppurating corruption are frequently associated with necromancy (and, by extension, undeath). Perhaps the various organisms responsible for decay and disease are more negative energy than positive energy beings. It would be a major but oddly insignificant paradigm shift to declare disease to be undead "microbes" rather than living ones. Cancer would be part of the patient's own body turning undead. (Heck, see the Mother Cyst and its Necrotic children in Libris Mortis for an example.) Colds and flus and more serious diseases would be negative energy miasmas that your living body has to devote its positive energy fuel to quashing, which is why you feel so drained when sick. Ghoul Fever being a disease would make perfect sense, coming from an infection of an undead bite.

Still doesn't quite rise to "making undead is inherently evil," any more than "radiation is inherently evil," but making undead is like making a full-on disease-elemental even if it can't spread its infection (any more than a 6-foot-tall bacterium could spread infection into equally-scaled humanoids).

I've suggested before (I don't remember where, may even have not been these forums, but that seems unlikely) that healing spells may be evil, because they oppose the balance of natural life and death. If so, diseases might be good, healing bad, and necromancy extreme healing. Again, that leaves the value of good looking somewhat dubious.

Keltest

2017-04-13, 11:03 AM

I've never been able to understand the idea that there's something evil or objectionable or offensive about someone trying to make themselves as immortal as possible. In and of itself, all questions of method and means aside, immortality as a desire/goal in no way seems wrong.

Why is that the default assumption? (That only evil people want that sort of power.)

Because evil is the alignment that chases power for its own sake at the expense of all else. Neutral can be interested in it, but generally isn't willing to cross certain lines (like becoming the unholy antithesis of all life). A good person who chases power does so because they can use that power to help people or improve things, and the power granted by lichdom is generally pretty limited to helping only yourself.

The other reason is that the easiest paths to immortality tend to be pretty immoral, so while evil people see them as realistic possibilities, good people don't, and thus set different goals. Admittedly, this is a bit of an artificial reason to enforce that assumption.

And finally, the Good afterlife is a generally nicer place than the Evil afterlife (even if evil people wouldn't exactly hate it there, it certainly isn't a world of comfort and joy), so they have less reason to fear death.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-13, 11:33 AM

Because evil is the alignment that chases power for its own sake at the expense of all else. Neutral can be interested in it, but generally isn't willing to cross certain lines (like becoming the unholy antithesis of all life). A good person who chases power does so because they can use that power to help people or improve things, and the power granted by lichdom is generally pretty limited to helping only yourself.

The other reason is that the easiest paths to immortality tend to be pretty immoral, so while evil people see them as realistic possibilities, good people don't, and thus set different goals. Admittedly, this is a bit of an artificial reason to enforce that assumption.

And finally, the Good afterlife is a generally nicer place than the Evil afterlife (even if evil people wouldn't exactly hate it there, it certainly isn't a world of comfort and joy), so they have less reason to fear death.

As a counter-example from D&D: in the Forgotten Realms setting, everyone, good or evil or whatever, who isn't willing to at least play at being an obsequious toady to a particular deity, has reason to avoid the afterlife for as long as they possibly can.

We seem to be back to moral relativity. If the gods of good aren't, then good isn't.

How so? Or is there a presumption that the gods get to decide what's good and what's evil, rather than morality being distinct from the typical petty arrogance of deities?

NichG

2017-04-13, 11:44 AM

Segev

2017-04-13, 12:08 PM

As a counter-example from D&D: in the Forgotten Realms setting, everyone, good or evil or whatever, who isn't willing to at least play at being an obsequious toady to a particular deity, has reason to avoid the afterlife for as long as they possibly can.Indeed. Yeesh, that's a stupid bit of lore.

How so? Or is there a presumption that the gods get to decide what's good and what's evil, rather than morality being distinct from the typical petty arrogance of deities?I think what he's saying has an implied final "good" at the end:

"If the gods aren't good, then Good isn't good."

Which is largely relating to what I've been saying about people who make the error of defining alignment by specific acts rather than holistically. Especially when they try to claim two opposing acts are required (or two acts which cannot both be avoided are forbidden) for the person doing them to be Good. That's not a failure of objective morality; that's a failure of the writer to define a correct objective morality.

If I define "wet" to mostly be the way we understand it, but also claim that sand is always wet, and thus the desert is fraught with water - how ironic that people die of thirst! I have not demonstrated that "wet" cannot have an objective definition; I have only demonstrated that I have created an inherently false definition.

Max_Killjoy

2017-04-13, 12:16 PM

I think what he's saying has an implied final "good" at the end:

"If the gods aren't good, then Good isn't good."

Which is largely relating to what I've been saying about people who make the error of defining alignment by specific acts rather than holistically. Especially when they try to claim two opposing acts are required (or two acts which cannot both be avoided are forbidden) for the person doing them to be Good. That's not a failure of objective morality; that's a failure of the writer to define a correct objective morality.

If I define "wet" to mostly be the way we understand it, but also claim that sand is always wet, and thus the desert is fraught with water - how ironic that people die of thirst! I have not demonstrated that "wet" cannot have an objective definition; I have only demonstrated that I have created an inherently false definition.

To me, whether the gods are good is tangential to whether good is good.

Whether any particular god is "good" or "evil" doesn't change what good is and what is not good.

(And I agree that "good" and "evil" as applicable adjectives are holistic, not pass-fail on a checklist.)

halfeye

2017-04-13, 12:39 PM

I think what he's saying has an implied final "good" at the end:

"If the gods aren't good, then Good isn't good."

Nearly, you missed a "good". "If the good gods aren't good, then good isn't good." Apparently, in D&D there are evil gods (usually called devils or demons, but those labels were already taken), so you have to specify which gods you are talking about.

To me, whether the gods are good is tangential to whether good is good.

Whether any particular god is "good" or "evil" doesn't change what good is and what is not good.

Okay, what is good?

(And I agree that "good" and "evil" as applicable adjectives are holistic, not pass-fail on a checklist.)

What does that mean? what does "holistic" mean in this context?

Segev

2017-04-13, 01:07 PM

Nearly, you missed a "good". "If the good gods aren't good, then good isn't good." Apparently, in D&D there are evil gods (usually called devils or demons, but those labels were already taken), so you have to specify which gods you are talking about.That's fair. Side comment, though: demons and devils are more akin to angels and the like. Even in Christianity, the Devil is generally considered a lesser order of being than God. Most religions of which I'm aware refer to "gods" as distinct from "supernatural good/evil-aligned beings." Now, they may BE supernatural and aligned, but the "demons" of the faith tend to be distinct from "evil gods" of the faith.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most religions of which I'm aware that have multi-god pantheons don't so much HAVE "demons" or "angels" as they have just good and evil gods. The Norse come closest, with different "families" of gods and the frost giants serving as somewhere between devil-like figures and generic monster-horde figures.

What does that mean? what does "holistic" mean in this context?
It means that good and evil are generally about how much you care for and respect others and their rights to exist and achieve happiness. It's about goals and outcomes as well as means, and as much about reasons as it is about specific acts. The paladin genuinely faced with a hard choice might not fall for ANY of the options, if he makes his choice for the right reasons and with the best judgment he can muster. A paladin faced with a seemingly easy choice might nonetheless fall if he makes the "easy" choice for the wrong reasons (though admittedly, in a game context, this can be hard to detect).

So you define "good" by what it seeks to accomplish, and by its attitudes towards others. You define "evil" similarly.

Evil is about the self and maybe a few others, and most importantly about not caring how badly you have to hurt those outside that circle. It's about viewing people as objects and tools to be used up and discarded, or obstacles to be destroyed, because the only "real people" are yourself and whoever you deign to decide matters.

To some extent, you can measure a transition from evil to neutral to good by how wide that circle of "real people" gets, but there's another quality to it: those outside that circle of "real people" can be viewed with degrees of personhood. The neutral person views them largely as deserving to be treated like "real people" at least until they actively are in the way, and even then, to minimize the abuse of them. Neutral people tend not to like seeing others hurt, but are willing to inflict pain for their own benefit if they can justify the pain as minor enough. Or the victim as "deserving it." The "deserving it" scale can also help gauge a position between neutral and evil. Or even neutral and good, as the "deserving it" level of allowable enjoyment diminishes the more good you are.

Good people as a general rule view EVERYONE as "real people." That's not to say they think animals are people, but rather that they have a definition of "person" that is not defined by how well they know somebody, or by membership in a particular "liked" group. Nor even defined by lack of membership in a "disliked" group, though there is room for discussion over whether somebody with a bigoted view of particular groups can be "good" or not.

The reason "the greater good" often becomes a byword for "actually pretty evil" is because it starts to view people as statistics, and not as people.

The above is why it has to be holistically considered. A Good man in a very hard position might make a lot of questionable-seeming calls, because it really is the best he can think of to do with what choices he has. As long as he never allows himself to start doing it with ease and expediency, he can avoid a slide to neutrality even while appearing pretty grim. Even if he's got enough wisdom to not feel guilt, he still will feel dreadful sorrow that is, in its own way, just as bad, every time he's forced to make a choice he wishes he could find a better option than. And he'll never, ever stop trying to find a better way. Nor will he let himself fall into the trap of assuming "any" way is better, as long as it hurts a DIFFERENT group. (This is the trap that catches most well-intentioned extremists.)

An Evil man can appear very good in many actions! But it is his reasons as much as his deeds which defines his alignment. Those people he's helping aren't "people" to him. They're statistics, tools, patsies...objects. And if they stop being useful when treated like a Good person would, he will stop bothering...or might even "expend" them for his personal benefit, if their expenditure is of greater worth to him than their continued being. But even so, those circumstances may never arise, and so he appears good...for now.

Something, then, in what it takes to be a Lich requires that you not be making "the hard choice" when you genuinely have no other option. It requires, on some level, viewing people as not-people, as worth less than your own existence, and acting on that devalued estimate of their worth to their extreme detriment.