Good Demon, Nice Demon

[Matuka]

While sitting at home, thinking, I thought of the Nephilim, angels who had become corrupted and rebelled against there god and were cast out of the celestial realms for it (I know it's not that simple, but that's not the point). And this made me think "Can demons do the same? Can demons turn good if angels can turn bad? And what would happen to that demon, where would he/she/it end up?" Same goes for devils, liches, chromatic dragons, and all the "evil" races of DnD. Could they, or more importantly would they, ever be good?

[Millstone85]

As the PHB says page 122, "If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil".

There is nothing about what a former fiend would look like. Maybe a tiefling-like mortal? Or a rare breed of celestial?

For dragons, I would totally change the lore so the shine of their scales is a reflection of their goodness, rather than what makes them tend toward it.

Liches aren't in any way a race. They are spellcasters who chose undeath, and a particularly vile soul-stealing version of it at that. Even so, D&D has had good-aligned versions, such as baelnorn liches and archliches. Very different rituals.

[Aett_Thorn]

You may want to start with this thread here, which asks a somewhat similar question:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?583704-Can-Archdevils-retire

[Unoriginal]

While sitting at home, thinking, I thought of the Nephilim, angels who had become corrupted and rebelled against there god and were cast out of the celestial realms for it (I know it's not that simple, but that's not the point). And this made me think "Can demons do the same? Can demons turn good if angels can turn bad? And what would happen to that demon, where would he/she/it end up?" Same goes for devils, liches, chromatic dragons, and all the "evil" races of DnD. Could they, or more importantly would they, ever be good?

D&D Nephilims aren't like that. You're thinking about Fallen Angels.

As for your other questions, according to 5e lore:

-Demons and devils can theoretically become good, but if they do so they stop being demons/devils and transform into a type of extraplanar creature fitting their new behavior. However, them changing their behavior to this point would be ridiculously rare. There is exactly one example in the lore of this, and it's a big "maybe it's what happened, not even scholars on the question are sure". It's the case of Gra'azt, who might have been a devil before leaving Hell for the Abyss and becoming a Demon Prince.

-Liches cannot be good. Being a lich requires to regularly sacrifice people and eat their souls just to help your own skin, and that's not counting all the horrors one has to accomplish before even reaching the ritual to tranform into one.

-Chromatic Dragons can be of any alignment. They just have tendencies and a culture that incentives and encourage them to behave a way that can be described as one of the evil alignments.

-Same can be said of most other evil species. Nothing stopping an orc from being a lawful good Redemption Paladin, or an hobgoblin from being a chaotic good gardener. But they do have tendencies (ex: orcs are prone to violent anger) and cultures (ex: the hobgoblins endlessly glorify fighting, following orders at all cost, and punish those who don't conform), so it's not likely for them to behave differently.

Note that being good and being nice are very different things. PCs could encounter a demon who's nice to them because it feels like it, it doesn't counter the countless atrocities they do or try to do otherwise.

[Dr. Cliché]

What about Devils becoming Demons (or vice versa)?

[Unoriginal]

What about Devils becoming Demons (or vice versa)?

As I said before:


There is exactly one example in the lore of this, and it's a big "maybe it's what happened, not even scholars on the question are sure". It's the case of Gra'azt, who might have been a devil before leaving Hell for the Abyss and becoming a Demon Prince.

Experts consider it possible, but it's basically unheard of, or at least not confirmed with any certainty.

It's even rarer than one of those entities abandoning their home plane.

[MaxWilson]

While sitting at home, thinking, I thought of the Nephilim, angels who had become corrupted and rebelled against there god and were cast out of the celestial realms for it (I know it's not that simple, but that's not the point). And this made me think "Can demons do the same? Can demons turn good if angels can turn bad? And what would happen to that demon, where would he/she/it end up?" Same goes for devils, liches, chromatic dragons, and all the "evil" races of DnD. Could they, or more importantly would they, ever be good?

In my games, there is only one dragon species, and personality determines color in sort of the same way that temperature determines sex for crocodiles. If you're stupid and brutal, you're white. If you're charismatic and tyrannical, you're red. If you have a change of heart and start being charismatic and friendly instead of tyrannical, you become silver.

Also, stirges are larval dragons, but dragons don't think of them as dragons yet any more than humans think of unfertilized ova as humans.

===============


What about Devils becoming Demons (or vice versa)?

Presumably this happens quite frequently in the Blood War. There's a bunch of Baatezu who turn you into a lemur when they kill you, Narzugons for example.

[Millstone85]

MToF even puts forth the theory that Graz'zt's defection from the infernal hierarchy might have started the Blood War.

In 4e, IIRC, some suspected Graz'zt was still working for Asmodeus, giving the latter a way to manipulate power struggles in the Abyss.

[Unoriginal]

Presumably this happens quite frequently in the Blood War. There's a bunch of Baatezu who turn you into a lemur when they kill you, Narzugons for example.

That's not the same thing, though, since a lemur made of your soul isn't you.

Also it's mentioned in the Mordenkainen's the devils haven't figured out how to make demons be sent to the Styx to transform into lemurs, in the Hellfire Engine's entry.

Which makes sense, since demons killed out of the Abyss just reforms there.

[Millstone85]

Also it's mentioned in the Mordenkainen's the devils haven't figured out how to make demons be sent to the Styx to transform into lemurs, in the Hellfire Engine's entry.The hellfire engine's stat block, however, only note constructs and devils as being immune to this effect.

Could that be a mistake? In the stat block, I mean.


Which makes sense, since demons killed out of the Abyss just reforms there.What about demons killed in the Abyss?

[Naanomi]

What about demons killed in the Abyss?
Traditionally, Exemplars killed in their home plane actually die; though their energies are reabsorbed by the plane and don’t really ‘go away’... so for example you destroy the individual demon but it doesn’t ultimately reduce then power of Chaotic-Evil in doing so

It is why demons are so cavalier (to the point of being suicidal) when summoned or fighting in the blood war... no real consequences besides inconvenience.

Devils... less so. Still no risk of personal death off-Baator; but real risk of demotion in screwing up

[manyslayer]

As the PHB says page 122, "If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil".

I actually find this rather disappointing as i always liked the idea of against type fiends and celestials. I loved the idea of the succubus paladin (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) in 3.5.

[Unoriginal]

Meanwhile, Yugoloth are (fittingly) a middle ground, as dying in another plane is not something they're eager to risk (as there is no reward for failure) but it's still not that big a deal as there is no serious personal consequences for doing so.

[Naanomi]

I actually find this rather disappointing as i always liked the idea of against type fiends and celestials. I loved the idea of the succubus paladin (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) in 3.5.
Fundamentally, this has been the lore of things since at least 2e Planescape. The process isn’t instant though; one could presumably be a Good succubus Paladin for a while before slowly transforming into a unique Celestial of some kind (guidelines not given in 5e for the specifics)

Of course, plenty of options in 5e for an Evil Paladin anyways

[Scripten]

I actually find this rather disappointing as i always liked the idea of against type fiends and celestials. I loved the idea of the succubus paladin (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) in 3.5.

Isn't that the entire point of Tieflings and Aasimar in the default setting? Sure, it's not an actual fiend or celestial, but both can be played against type without changing form.


In my games, there is only one dragon species, and personality determines color in sort of the same way that temperature determines sex for crocodiles. If you're stupid and brutal, you're white. If you're charismatic and tyrannical, you're red. If you have a change of heart and start being charismatic and friendly instead of tyrannical, you become silver.

This is a neat idea. In my games, Dragons are, like Outsiders, the embodiment of their alignment. However, due to some flimflam regarding obscure theological stuff, they act as the midpoint between Elemental and Divine Outsiders and so both their component alignments and elements determine their coloration. (It also means that they are not beholden to the gods, which is important for keeping them enigmatic.)

[Millstone85]

Traditionally, Exemplars killed in their home plane actually dieI know.

My point was that demons reforming in the Abyss doesn't explain why they aren't mentioned in the hellfire engine's stat block.


Isn't that the entire point of Tieflings and Aasimar in the default setting? Sure, it's not an actual fiend or celestial, but both can be played against type without changing form.True for tieflings, but aasimar change subrace when they turn to or away from evil.

[Scripten]

True for tieflings, but aasimar change subrace when they turn to or away from evil.

That's a fair point, though arguably Fallen Aasimar are still Aasimar and the change isn't forced on the player side. You (and technically your DM) get to choose whether or not there are outward changes alongside the alignment shift.

[krugaan]

As the PHB says page 122, "If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil".


I guess it would be a "dneutral" or "dgood" instead, HYAR HYAR HYAR Hya-

/crickets

I'll see myself out now.

[Chronos]

Dragons are somewhere in between orcs and fiends, in how their morality works. Unlike a demon, a red dragon isn't inherently chaotic nor evil, and can exercise free will to change alignment without changing its fundamental substance. But unlike most mortal races, they also don't need to be taught their alignment: Dragons are sapient right from the moment of their hatching, capable of understanding and even discussing the philosophical implications of ethics and morality, and for a red dragon hatchling, that ethical and moral philosophy will be Chaotic Evil. By contrast, if a newborn orc were raised by good, loving parents in a supportive community, the orc would probably end up good as well (though possibly with a short temper and inclination towards destructiveness, because orcs do have an inclination towards that).

[EdenIndustries]

There are some examples in past editions of devils and demons becoming good. The 2nd answer to the question here: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/76819/can-a-demon-or-devil-be-redeemed has a great list.

[Matuka]

You may want to start with this thread here, which asks a somewhat similar question:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?583704-Can-Archdevils-retire

Already did, but I wanted to take it a step farther.

[Matuka]

What about Devils becoming Demons (or vice versa)?

No I mean demons and devils becoming good. If a devil becomes a demon (or vice versa), it's most likely still evil.

[Matuka]

As I said before:



Experts consider it possible, but it's basically unheard of, or at least not confirmed with any certainty.

It's even rarer than one of those entities abandoning their home plane.

If you were a demon and you became good, would you stick around and wait for the other demons to notice?

[Unoriginal]

What if they only eat and sacrifice the souls of evil creatures so you can continue to be an enforcer of good for eternity?

You aren't an enforcer of good if you eat and sacrifice souls. No matter whose souls it is.


And there is always another way to do something, especially in DnD.

Not always, no.


If you were a demon and you became good, would you stick around and wait for the other demons to notice?

Escaping the Abyss isn't exactly easy.

[Matuka]

Fundamentally, this has been the lore of things since at least 2e Planescape. The process isn’t instant though; one could presumably be a Good succubus Paladin for a while before slowly transforming into a unique Celestial of some kind (guidelines not given in 5e for the specifics)

Of course, plenty of options in 5e for an Evil Paladin anyways

Or just an unwarped version of a demon, cleaner and less evil looking but still resembling the original demon.

[Unoriginal]

Succubi aren't demons in 5e.

[Tawmis]

What about Devils becoming Demons (or vice versa)?

I think, in the end - it all depends on your campaign and what you want to do. For example, in my campaign, one of my players made a Tiefling (which were fairly new to the world), and that's because in my world, and event drained magic from it - so people were turning to demons and such to gain magically abilities, ask for miracles, and the whole bit... So this player's character, turned to a demon named Belaros (whom I made up for the campaign), to do some miracle - and Belaros (the demon) agreed - at the cost of baring a child of his. That child became the Tiefling character. So as I played, I wanted to make Belaros something of a bigger deal, and really hook in the Tiefling player - so she started finding more and more Cults of Belaros - and discovered that Belaros gains power by mortals born into the world (using their souls as a lightning rod of power) - and because of it, Belaros rose in power and became a demon-lord (just below the likes of Orcus and such). Not quite a devil, but up there in power.

[Matuka]

You aren't an enforcer of good if you eat and sacrifice souls. No matter whose souls it is.



Not always, no.



Escaping the Abyss isn't exactly easy.

Says who? I can see a lawful good luck eating/sacrificing souls because "just killing them would be a waste" and using there bodies for his necromatic army.

Yes always, if your creativity is powerful enough.

Ok yeah, I agree with you there.

[Matuka]

Succubi aren't demons in 5e.

I didn't say that they were.

[Unoriginal]

Says who?

Says the game. And the definition of "good" in English.



I can see a lawful good luck eating/sacrificing souls because "just killing them would be a waste" and using there bodies for his necromatic army.

That's not a lawful good character. That's a BBEG and a sociopath of the highest order.

Even just having a necromantic army would disqualify him for any pretense of being good or neutral. As is indicated in the PHB.



Yes always, if your creativity is powerful enough.

You asked for this edition's lore. There is nothing creative about asking a question and then refusing the answer.

You can bring back the ways to have good liches from past editions, if you want. But that's your decision as a DM, not something we can give input about.

[Matuka]

Says the game. And the definition of "good" in English.



That's not a lawful good character. That's a BBEG and a sociopath of the highest order.

Even just having a necromantic army would disqualify him for any pretense of being good or neutral. As is indicated in the PHB.



You asked for this edition's lore. There is nothing creative about asking a question and then refusing the answer.

You can bring back the ways to have good liches from past editions, if you want. But that's your decision as a DM, not something we can give input about.

Killing evil and using what's left to destroy more evil is good.

Unless your killing innocents in the process, killing them, eating there souls that were already bound for The Nine Hells or The Abyss, and using there bodies to kill more evil, enforce law, or help people is good.

Using Necromancy does not automatically make you evil (well depending on your world, in mine when you use Necromancy, you create an artificial spirit which acts as a sort of AI for the undead creature. If in your world Necromancy uses the spirits of the dead and traps them until the vessel is destroyed, then yeah, that is much harder to justify, morally).

No, I was asking for the opinions of fellow DMs, you can bring rules and canon lore into it if you want, but I'm more interested in what you think then what the book think.

You can give input, that's why I made this thread, to listen your ideas and opinions, and to go from there instead of jumping in blind.

[Angelalex242]

Well, if you're gonna do that, you might want to use an archetype from another universe where that happens.

If this particular demon/devil acts like Hellboy, for example...then he better get away from his fellows fast or 'kill the traitor' is the first thing on their minds.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I actually find this rather disappointing as i always liked the idea of against type fiends and celestials. I loved the idea of the succubus paladin (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) in 3.5.

Perfectly understandable, but I think it makes sense to see them transform type. Zariel didn't stay an angel when she decided to spend all her time in Hell helping fight demons. But, you could keep a lot of the same flavor by changing the creature's type from 'demon' to 'angel' while leaving its outward appearance largely the same, as most humans judge based on that, rather than sensing creature type.

[stoutstien]

Good demon
Nice demon
Little fiend of love
Patient demon
Polite demon
Gurr gurr gurr

[Matuka]

Well, if you're gonna do that, you might want to use an archetype from another universe where that happens.

If this particular demon/devil acts like Hellboy, for example...then he better get away from his fellows fast or 'kill the traitor' is the first thing on their minds.

A demon would also have to watch for devils on its way out. They will think of him as the weak link and try to capture him for information. A normal demon would just snarl and bite, not fearing death or pain in the slightest. But a good demon would, because he/she would no longer know what happens when they die and would not want to risk it.

[Malifice]

Clearly outsiders can change alignment. Plenty of canonical examples of them doing just that.

Grazzt, every single Erinyes, Azazel.

It's just super rare (outside of Angels, who fall more than others on account of being killers and warriors and killing = evil), and when it does happen, their very essence changes to match their new alignment.

Angels are the special case in that they seem to fall more often than other outsiders as their whole righteous fury can often lead them to doing wiked things for 'the greater good'.

Which is in line with the general rule that the righteous path or the high road, can be hard to follow.

There was also a Succubus in the 3.5 BoED of Good alignment, who had redeemed herself. Unsure if that's cannon though.

I cant think of too many (indeed any) canonical examples of creatures that are evil (or good) by nature, and also lack free will to change that alignment. Even Orcs, Drow and Gnolls (who have at times been depicted as being drawn to evil on account of 'fiendish blood') can choose a higher path and be of Good alignment, even if they always feel that urge towards violence and evil.

[Malifice]

I can see a lawful good eating/sacrificing souls because "just killing them would be a waste" and using there bodies for his necromatic army.

Oh for the love of God.

Seriously?

[Spore]

Regardless of any official sources I have always felt that planar creatures have no free will and would not "switch sides" short of some epic tales. Because they are the embodiment of said alignment, and because they have no "soul".

If you however have a world like Diablo where Good and Evil are not values but simply descriptors like "cold" or "fire", I can see demons and angels deviate from their standard.

[Matuka]

Oh for the love of God.

Seriously?

Absolutely, a being who uses a taboo magic in the name of good and justice, up holding the law and slaughtering evil, only using said evil to fuel his magic could only be LG, NG and CG would never go to such lengths to protect there people.

[Constructman]

Killing evil and using what's left to destroy more evil is good.

Unless your killing innocents in the process, killing them, eating there souls that were already bound for The Nine Hells or The Abyss, and using there bodies to kill more evil, enforce law, or help people is good.

Using Necromancy does not automatically make you evil (well depending on your world, in mine when you use Necromancy, you create an artificial spirit which acts as a sort of AI for the undead creature. If in your world Necromancy uses the spirits of the dead and traps them until the vessel is destroyed, then yeah, that is much harder to justify, morally).

No, I was asking for the opinions of fellow DMs, you can bring rules and canon lore into it if you want, but I'm more interested in what you think then what the book think.

You can give input, that's why I made this thread, to listen your ideas and opinions, and to go from there instead of jumping in blind.

Most canon necromantic magic that animates the dead involves drawing power from the Negative Energy Plane or its equivalent, which automatically makes it an Evil act.

The Elves of Aerenal in Eberron have a technique for creating undead that instead uses the light of Irian -- Positive Energy -- as fuel. They use this power to sustain their leaders, Undying Court, as well as honoured heroes of their kind.

[Matuka]

Most canon necromantic magic that animates the dead involves drawing power from the Negative Energy Plane or its equivalent, which automatically makes it an Evil act.

The Elves of Aerenal in Eberron have a technique for creating undead that instead uses the light of Irian -- Positive Energy -- as fuel. They use this power to sustain their leaders, Undying Court, as well as honoured heroes of their kind.

Again, depends on the world you build, not the books

[MaxWilson]

Killing evil and using what's left to destroy more evil is good.

Arguably it's even more interesting if your alignment is still Evil due to how the DM interprets metaphysics. Now you've got an Evil guy playing on team Good against the evil guys, so clearly Evil != evil. At that point, who cares any more what your alignment says? Do what you (the player) judge to be right and forget what alignment label the DM sticks on you.

It's not like it's exactly uncommon in literature to have someone on the good guys' side who's kind of an unscrupulous psychopath. Richard in LFG, Queen Mab in the Dresden Files, Morrolan and Aliera and Vlad in Dragaera, Rocket Racoon and Drax in Guardians of the Galaxy...

[Malifice]

Absolutely, a being who uses a taboo magic in the name of good and justice, up holding the law and slaughtering evil, only using said evil to fuel his magic could only be LG, NG and CG would never go to such lengths to protect there people.

Utter and total rubbish.

He'd be evilly aligned every day of the week.

Are you saying that if my PC engaged in a lawfully enacted program of genocide of millions of people (to combat a percieved conspiracy from those I killed, directed at my own people), invaded the neighboring lands of infidels and barbarians (in order to seize those lands and secure living space for my own people), out of a genuine desire to ensure future peace and the security of my own people, and for the 'greater good', I would be LG?

Is that your actual argument here?

[Constructman]

Again, depends on the world you build, not the books

True.

Related tangent:


Secrets of Undeath. No wizard takes up the path to lichdom on a whim, and the process of becoming a lich is a well-guarded secret. Wizards that seek lichdom must make bargains with fiends, evil gods, or other foul entities. Many turn to Orcus, Demon Prince of Undeath, whose power has created countless liches. However, those that control the power of lichdom always demand fealty and service for their knowledge.

Not a good look for a Wizard seeking undeath but not willing to take the plunge into the deep end of the Evil pool. Even discounting the whole "eating souls" detail, you're still haggling with Outsiders who generally don't have the best interests of Good in mind. Unless you can somehow rob Orcus blind while blindfolded and with one hand tied behind your back, you're not getting out of that deal with your moral character intact.

However, that is the assumptions of the default setting. How do Liches become Liches in your world, and how do they keep their souls from becoming corrupted even as they work to tear them from their bodies?

[Malifice]

It's not like it's exactly uncommon in literature to have someone on the good guys' side who's kind of an unscrupulous psychopath. Richard in LFG, Queen Mab in the Dresden Files, Morrolan and Aliera and Vlad in Dragaera, Rocket Racoon and Drax in Guardians of the Galaxy...

Its entirely common for the forces of Good to have an Evil protagonist working with them.

Titus Pullo from HBO's Rome, Carol in the middle seasons of TWD, the Punisher (although Netflix has toned him right down), Kitiara, Rastlin, Steel Brightblade from Dragonlance. Artemis in Faerun in recent novels.

Evil fights Evil all the damn time. Look at the Blood War for starters.

Evil gets **** done. Metaphsycially however all they're really doing is condemning another soul to Hell (their own).

Truly good people recognise this fact, and refuse to do evil, knowing that's the only way Good (metaphyscially) wins.

[Anymage]

Since this has turned into the topic of benevolent liches, I wonder what said lich would do if the time for monthly feeding rolled around and a fantasy hitler had failed to materialize. Decide that all evil must be punished as harshly as possible and start annihilating the souls of minor bandits? Decide that sometimes you have to do regrettable things in the name of the greater good and eat some commoner? Uncompromising, excessive law and "for the greater good" are both classic roads to hell.

I could maybe see someone discovering a less evil version of the lichdom ritual that left them in proper stasis while inactive and didn't require the intervention of lower planar creatures. The only way they could stay good while requiring regular meals of souls to stay active, though, would be to spend most of their time in stasis and only be activated at their land's hour of greatest need. They'd be King Arthur-like plot devices, though, not active characters in the setting. As soon as they decide they need to stick around for a while, the moral qualms about their diet start to become issues.

[MaxWilson]

Truly good people recognise this fact, and refuse to do evil, knowing that's the only way Good (metaphyscially) wins.

You're still conflating good with Good and evil with Evil. Alignment != morality. The DM has no power to tell you that you're evil or good in a moral sense, but they can say you're Evil or Good in a mechanical sense. The DM gets to set their own rules for how alignment works in their universe, but the player decides moral issues for themselves.

It does take a strong, internal moral compass though to ignore alignment labels.


Since this has turned into the topic of benevolent liches, I wonder what said lich would do if the time for monthly feeding rolled around and a fantasy hitler had failed to materialize. Decide that all evil must be punished as harshly as possible and start annihilating the souls of minor bandits? Decide that sometimes you have to do regrettable things in the name of the greater good and eat some commoner? Uncompromising, excessive law and "for the greater good" are both classic roads to hell.

Regretfully starve to death? (If they choose their road, is this evidence that they really were good and honorable all along, even if they were Evil from an alignment perspective?)

[JackPhoenix]

Eating (or oherwise destroying) souls is the one thing even DEMONS consider taboo. Just sayin'.

[Millstone85]

You're still conflating good with Good and evil with Evil. Alignment != morality. The DM has no power to tell you that you're evil or good in a moral sense, but they can say you're Evil or Good in a mechanical sense. The DM gets to set their own rules for how alignment works in their universe, but the player decides moral issues for themselves.I doubt anyone would actually play that way, unless the idea was to run a joke setting where wearing socks with sandals is objectively a mortal sin.

In-game good and in-game evil start with the DM making a real-life moral call. They think your character is a hero, a villain, or something in-between.

[Finback]

-Liches cannot be good. Being a lich requires to regularly sacrifice people and eat their souls just to help your own skin, and that's not counting all the horrors one has to accomplish before even reaching the ritual to tranform into one.

Are we including baelnorns under the subset of liches? Or as something distinctive?

[Unoriginal]

Since this is turning into an alignment debate:

5e alignments are description of your typical behavior. There are no Good or Evil, it's only good or evil, and sacrificing people regularly is part what falls under one of the evil alignments' description, even if the sacrificed person is evil.

On this, I'm dropping from this thread, as it'll be a fruitless effort to continue debating this point.

I'll just point out that the 2e Planescape Adventure "the Deva Spark" shows a demon physically changing when turning good.


Are we including baelnorns under the subset of liches? Or as something distinctive?

Baslnorns have not been described at any point in 5e, even in the Mordenkainen's when elf-specific magic is discussed, so until they are I'm putting them in the "it worked like that in past edition but not anymore" category.

[Millstone85]

Are we including baelnorns under the subset of liches? Or as something distinctive?
Baslnorns have not been described at any point in 5e, even in the Mordenkainen's when elf-specific magic is discussed, so until they are I'm putting them in the "it worked like that in past edition but not anymore" category.For what is worth, 3e Monsters of Faerûn put them under good liches, along with archliches. Anyway, baelnorns are powered by faith, while archliches seem to achieve advanced undeath through sheer mastery of the arcane. No demonic bargain or soul eating.

[Zilong]

To bring the thread back to the main point, because I'm curious as well if we were to ignore the built-in fluff of 5e, as I often do at my tables, what would a fallen (ascended?) demon or devil look like?

I saw a bunch of statements that basically say "impossible", but let's say it was possible. What then? we already have a good idea of fallen angels from various forms of ancient and contemporary media, and even in 5e itself with Zariel. However, depictions of reformed evil entities are not as numerous. Hellboy was an example someone brought up, but since he is half human it would probably more appropriate to compare him to a Tiefling or Cambion than a true devil or demon.

[noob]

As the PHB says page 122, "If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil".

There is nothing about what a former fiend would look like. Maybe a tiefling-like mortal? Or a rare breed of celestial?

For dragons, I would totally change the lore so the shine of their scales is a reflection of their goodness, rather than what makes them tend toward it.

Liches aren't in any way a race. They are spellcasters who chose undeath, and a particularly vile soul-stealing version of it at that. Even so, D&D has had good-aligned versions, such as baelnorn liches and archliches. Very different rituals.
In 3.5 lich did not have soul addiction so good liches did make way more sense back then.

[Matuka]

Utter and total rubbish.

He'd be evilly aligned every day of the week.

Are you saying that if my PC engaged in a lawfully enacted program of genocide of millions of people (to combat a percieved conspiracy from those I killed, directed at my own people), invaded the neighboring lands of infidels and barbarians (in order to seize those lands and secure living space for my own people), out of a genuine desire to ensure future peace and the security of my own people, and for the 'greater good', I would be LG?

Is that your actual argument here?

Absolutely, and I believe in it without question.

[Matuka]

True.

Related tangent:



Not a good look for a Wizard seeking undeath but not willing to take the plunge into the deep end of the Evil pool. Even discounting the whole "eating souls" detail, you're still haggling with Outsiders who generally don't have the best interests of Good in mind. Unless you can somehow rob Orcus blind while blindfolded and with one hand tied behind your back, you're not getting out of that deal with your moral character intact.

However, that is the assumptions of the default setting. How do Liches become Liches in your world, and how do they keep their souls from becoming corrupted even as they work to tear them from their bodies?

Through intense study, the knowledge of lichdom is on the material plane, you just have to find it. There is always the chance that in there dying hour, a lich would write down how to become a lich just to spite the one who gave him the knowledge. Then put that knowledge in several books and send them across the land. He would die knowing he made the life of one future lich a whole lot easier, and the life of his master just that much worse. Or something similar to that.

[Matuka]

Since this has turned into the topic of benevolent liches, I wonder what said lich would do if the time for monthly feeding rolled around and a fantasy hitler had failed to materialize. Decide that all evil must be punished as harshly as possible and start annihilating the souls of minor bandits? Decide that sometimes you have to do regrettable things in the name of the greater good and eat some commoner? Uncompromising, excessive law and "for the greater good" are both classic roads to hell.

I could maybe see someone discovering a less evil version of the lichdom ritual that left them in proper stasis while inactive and didn't require the intervention of lower planar creatures. The only way they could stay good while requiring regular meals of souls to stay active, though, would be to spend most of their time in stasis and only be activated at their land's hour of greatest need. They'd be King Arthur-like plot devices, though, not active characters in the setting. As soon as they decide they need to stick around for a while, the moral qualms about their diet start to become issues.

Or he asks his people, he is lawful good after all. He lets them vote. 1. I go into a deep sleep and wait for the next evil person due for execution of 2. You sacrifice one person to keep me going so I can continue to protect you. And if 2. Is chosen, who should it be? Who would they choose to be sacrificed and how would they go about it?

[Matuka]

You're still conflating good with Good and evil with Evil. Alignment != morality. The DM has no power to tell you that you're evil or good in a moral sense, but they can say you're Evil or Good in a mechanical sense. The DM gets to set their own rules for how alignment works in their universe, but the player decides moral issues for themselves.

It does take a strong, internal moral compass though to ignore alignment labels.



Regretfully starve to death? (If they choose their road, is this evidence that they really were good and honorable all along, even if they were Evil from an alignment perspective?)

When a lich doesn't eat souls, they just turn into a demilich, basically a skull with jewels, until it's phylactory is fed a soul, then the lich comes right back. He wouldn't be dead, though he would be in essence a prison until someone fed the phylactory.

[Matuka]

To bring the thread back to the main point, because I'm curious as well if we were to ignore the built-in fluff of 5e, as I often do at my tables, what would a fallen (ascended?) demon or devil look like?

I saw a bunch of statements that basically say "impossible", but let's say it was possible. What then? we already have a good idea of fallen angels from various forms of ancient and contemporary media, and even in 5e itself with Zariel. However, depictions of reformed evil entities are not as numerous. Hellboy was an example someone brought up, but since he is half human it would probably more appropriate to compare him to a Tiefling or Cambion than a true devil or demon.

I think they would look less warped, fairer skin, less intense eyes. They would still resemble the original demon/devil, but they would still be different.

[Cicciograna]

Question (a genuine one, not sarcastic or to fan the flames): let's suppose we have a "good lich". As a lich, he still has to eat souls to survive. He manages to slay a very evil person whose soul, after his death, would end up onto one of the Lower Planes and most likely tortured for all the eternity. He then decides to consciously save that soul from an eternity of torment by devouring it.

How do we classify this act?

This really looks like the trolley problem, to be honest...

[Malifice]

{Scrubbed}

[JackPhoenix]

Question (a genuine one, not sarcastic or to fan the flames): let's suppose we have a "good lich". As a lich, he still has to eat souls to survive. He manages to slay a very evil person whose soul, after his death, would end up onto one of the Lower Planes and most likely tortured for all the eternity. He then decides to consciously save that soul from an eternity of torment by devouring it.

How do we classify this act?

This really looks like the trolley problem, to be honest...

Destroying souls is evil. So evil, in fact, that even demons consider it too much. Selfish reasons for doing so only compound the issue. If you're level 17+ wizard (which is a requirement for being a lich), you have other means of achieving immortality at your disposal.

[Millstone85]

Destroying souls is evil. So evil, in fact, that even demons consider it too much.I really wish nabassu lore didn't just casually mention that other demons have a rule against devouring souls, without explaining why. Is that really where they draw the line? What even normally happens to a demon's soul (which nabassus apparently think is a thing) when it is perma-killed? Does it merge with the Abyss? Does the Abyss program demons not to deny it souls?

[Matuka]

Question (a genuine one, not sarcastic or to fan the flames): let's suppose we have a "good lich". As a lich, he still has to eat souls to survive. He manages to slay a very evil person whose soul, after his death, would end up onto one of the Lower Planes and most likely tortured for all the eternity. He then decides to consciously save that soul from an eternity of torment by devouring it.

How do we classify this act?

This really looks like the trolley problem, to be honest...

Depends on what happens when your soul is eaten. If you stop existing, that's better then an eternity of pain. And I have not seen anything (or at least not yet) to suggest that having your soul eaten is painful or tells us what happens afterward.

[Matuka]

{scrubbed}

[Matuka]

Destroying souls is evil. So evil, in fact, that even demons consider it too much. Selfish reasons for doing so only compound the issue. If you're level 17+ wizard (which is a requirement for being a lich), you have other means of achieving immortality at your disposal.

Being destroyed is better then pain we mortals can only imagine, pushed until you lose your mind and lose all of what you were. Or have your mind warped into a monster who's only purpose in life is to maul, kill, and destroy, and most of the time even death does not grant you rest, only acting as a one way ticket to doing it all over again. I'd rather not exist at all then ever go through that.

[Scripten]

No, Hitler did what he did for power and control. He was lawful evil. This LG lich does what he does to protect his people at all costs, even his own morality.

If it's at the cost of his own morality, then he's not LG.

[Constructman]

{Scrubbed}

[Malifice]

OP sincerely thinks the genocide of millions of people is a morally good act.

Why people are engaging with him I have no idea.

[Matuka]

Ok, since it apparently got missed somewhere down the line...



A character who does evil things for good reasons is still going to register as Evil. It's not exactly an esoteric concept; well-intentioned extremists (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist) can be found all across modern fiction. Their intentions may be noble, but their methods cross over the line so far that there's no doubt that they're bringing more evil than good into the world.

In the case of this hypothetical dictator enacting mass genocide and invading the lands of barbarians and infidels, they could be the most selfless person in the world, but the sheer scale of the suffering they're causing precludes them from being seen as Good by a outside observer. Doesn't matter what their intentions are; their behaviour can easily be described as Evil. And caring only for one's people with no regard for the lives of outsiders is not behaviour that is regarded as Good.

From 3.5's description of Lawful Evil:



Lawful Evil is going on their statblock. Maybe if their pantheon's god has a particularly strong vendetta against the species they're murderizing, they'll be able to avoid the worst consequences of it in the afterlife. But if no god vouches for them, they're gonna find themselves swimming in the Styx when they eventually meet their end; the best they can hope for is a Pit Fiend or Archdevil being impressed by their actions and giving them an immediate promotion in the Infernal hierarchy.

Soul being eaten: if a soul's eaten, that's it for it. Nothing short of a Wish can bring it back. Outsiders disperse into energy that's absorbed into their home plane if permanently killed, but if they're explicitly destroyed or eaten, that doesn't happen.

First, just because some said it, doesn't mean it's true.

Second, protecting your kingdom and the freedom of it's citizens is not evil, even if the method is a necromatic army and the devouring of evil souls

Third, crushing threats to your people is not evil. He doesn't go out of his way to attack people and would rather starve then kill innocents, but why waste the souls of the evil if there just going to become demons or devils. If his people are in danger, he will stamp it out.

Fourth, if that were true, the why care so much about his people? Why go to such lengths to protect them?

Fifth, as I am arguing, no, that is not the case. They may not agree with his methods, but they won't be able to argue the fact that he killed hundreds of evil people and protected his people while doing so.

If I were evil, I would rather stop existing then go to hell , because hell sounds much worse.

[Matuka]

If it's at the cost of his own morality, then he's not LG.

Okay true, I worded that wrong. He does everything to protect his people and destroy evil threats. If a neutral country declared war on him for reasonable charges, he would fight them like any other, not eating there souls or raising there dead. If a band of evil orcs attacked his people without warning, burning there houses and killing them, he would crush them and eat there souls. He has morality, it's just darker then normal.

[Malifice]

He has morality, it's just darker then normal.

In other words, he's ****ing evil.

[Matuka]

OP sincerely thinks the genocide of millions of people is a morally good act.

Why people are engaging with him I have no idea.

If all those millions of people were serial killers, rapists, psychopaths, or in any way evil, then yes, it would be good. It would be millions of problems the world no longer has to deal with.

[Matuka]

In other words, he's ****ing evil.

No, it means he's like an executioner, he kills people so they won't harm more people and benefits from there death.

[Hail Tempus]

No, it means he's like an executioner, he kills people so they won't harm more people and benefits from there death.
Someone who voluntarily takes a job where he routinely executes people is, at best, Lawful Neutral under the D&D alignment system. More likely, he’s somewhere in the Evil side of the alignment pool, and has found a job where he can express his desire to kill people in a legal way.

Executioner isn’t a job I’d associate with Good people.

[Cicciograna]

If all those millions of people were serial killers, rapists, psychopaths, or in any way evil, then yes, it would be good. It would be millions of problems the world no longer has to deal with.

This statement is really, really dangerous. Killing a person is NEVER a solution: quite the contrary, it's the most scornful admission of failure on behalf of Justice and Mercy.

The solution to the "evils" of the world would be to identify the reasons of their deranged behavior and correct them in a way that the "evil person" would be able to become a productive or at least pacifist member of the society in which we live. Punishment for the sake of punishment is just mere revenge.

[Constructman]

First, just because some said it, doesn't mean it's true.

Second, protecting your kingdom and the freedom of it's citizens is not evil, even if the method is a necromatic army and the devouring of evil souls

Third, crushing threats to your people is not evil. He doesn't go out of his way to attack people and would rather starve then kill innocents, but why waste the souls of the evil if there just going to become demons or devils. If his people are in danger, he will stamp it out.

Fourth, if that were true, the why care so much about his people? Why go to such lengths to protect them?

Fifth, as I am arguing, no, that is not the case. They may not agree with his methods, but they won't be able to argue the fact that he killed hundreds of evil people and protected his people while doing so.

If I were evil, I would rather stop existing then go to hell , because hell sounds much worse.

First, it was a paraphrase of the PHB, but if you want it straight from the horse's mouth:


Alignment:A typical creature in the game world has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations.

These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.

Second, animation of the dead uses Negative Energy as fuel, and the Undead created by Animate Dead and Create Undead are hostile to the living by default, only pacified if regularly shackled by the spellcaster. Hence, Evil.

Third, you agreed with the assertion that this ruler would condone genocide and invade the lands of "barbarians and infidels". Genocide is an Evil act. While attacking nations you are at war with isn't automatically evil, putting them to the sword simply on account of the group they belong to is.

Fourth, Evil still has loved ones, most of all Lawful Evil. An LE character prides themselves on the allegiance they hold to their friends, organizations, communities, nation, etc. They aren't above abusing the systems and community they exist within for their own gain, but threaten their community and they will fight as hard as any Lawful Good champion of civilization to defend it -- though they will try to elevate their own position in the process. Hobgoblins are listed as an example of Lawful Evil creatures. They are pretty much the mortal exemplars of Lawful Evil. They live and die for their legion. Their legion's glory is their personal glory. Yet they are still considered Evil, for they actively crusade against and colonize the nations of other races and desecrate their holy places in the name of their god Maglubiyet. They care about their community, only their community, and that is why they are Evil.

Fifth, the methods are all that matter. He protected his people, but destroyed countless others to do so. This approach reflects that of an imperialistic power, which incorporate certain Evil practices into the perpetuation of their hegemony.

Sixth, the destruction of souls has always been labeled as Evil in D&D sourcebooks. It's not explicitly stated why, so the following is my view on it. This is conjecture.

The cosmic Good is associated with anything that cultivates and nurtures life. Meanwhile, the cosmic Evil is associated with anything that harms and stifles life. This is reflected in the nine alignments; Good is predisposed towards actively aiding other living beings, while Evil is actively predisposed towards harming other living beings, and Neutral does not strongly lean either way. This is reflected in the Outsiders; Good Outsiders make the lives of those around them better, while Evil Outsiders make life for everybody around them a living hell. This is why all Good deities can claim influence over the Life domain, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with their portfolio; meanwhile, all Evil deities can claim the Death domain, again even if they don't have anything to do with death. This is also reflected in the nature of the Positive and Negative Energy Planes, which provide the raw forces of life and death that underlie the rest of existence in the multiverse.

The act of destroying and consuming a soul is the ultimate expression of Death, and therefore the ultimate Evil. It is the exemplar of Evil in all of its life-destroying selfishness. It is rebellion against the natural process of the multiverse, tearing the circle of life asunder. It denies its victim of any future potential, of any future growth in life. That is why it is evil.

Seventh, doing an Evil act to an Evil person is still Evil. The target of your actions does not matter, nor does the intent behind it. Only the action itself matters. You will not answer for the Good and Evil others do, only your own.

[Matuka]

First, it was a paraphrase of the PHB, but if you want it straight from the horse's mouth:



Second, animation of the dead uses Negative Energy as fuel, and the Undead created by Animate Dead and Create Undead are hostile to the living by default, only pacified if regularly shackled by the spellcaster. Hence, Evil.

Third, you agreed with the assertion that this ruler would condone genocide and invade the lands of "barbarians and infidels". Genocide is an Evil act. While attacking nations you are at war with isn't automatically evil, putting them to the sword simply on account of the group they belong to is.

Fourth, Evil still has loved ones, most of all Lawful Evil. An LE character prides themselves on the allegiance they hold to their friends, organizations, communities, nation, etc. They aren't above abusing the systems and community they exist within for their own gain, but threaten their community and they will fight as hard as any Lawful Good champion of civilization to defend it -- though they will try to elevate their own position in the process. Hobgoblins are listed as an example of Lawful Evil creatures. They are pretty much the mortal exemplars of Lawful Evil. They live and die for their legion. Their legion's glory is their personal glory. Yet they are still considered Evil, for they actively crusade against and colonize the nations of other races and desecrate their holy places in the name of their god Maglubiyet. They care about their community, only their community, and that is why they are Evil.

Fifth, the methods are all that matter. He protected his people, but destroyed countless others to do so. This approach reflects that of an imperialistic power, which incorporate certain Evil practices into the perpetuation of their hegemony.

Sixth, the destruction of souls has always been labeled as Evil in D&D sourcebooks. It's not explicitly stated why, so the following is my view on it. This is conjecture.

The cosmic Good is associated with anything that cultivates and nurtures life. Meanwhile, the cosmic Evil is associated with anything that harms and stifles life. This is reflected in the nine alignments; Good is predisposed towards actively aiding other living beings, while Evil is actively predisposed towards harming other living beings, and Neutral does not strongly lean either way. This is reflected in the Outsiders; Good Outsiders make the lives of those around them better, while Evil Outsiders make life for everybody around them a living hell. This is why all Good deities can claim influence over the Life domain, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with their portfolio; meanwhile, all Evil deities can claim the Death domain, again even if they don't have anything to do with death. This is also reflected in the nature of the Positive and Negative Energy Planes, which provide the raw forces of life and death that underlie the rest of existence in the multiverse.

The act of destroying and consuming a soul is the ultimate expression of Death, and therefore the ultimate Evil. It is the exemplar of Evil in all of its life-destroying selfishness. It is rebellion against the natural process of the multiverse, tearing the circle of life asunder. It denies its victim of any future potential, of any future growth in life. That is why it is evil.

Seventh, doing an Evil act to an Evil person is still Evil. The target of your actions does not matter, nor does the intent behind it. Only the action itself matters. You will not answer for the Good and Evil others do, only your own.

First, alright but it still stands, what he's doing is good, and he acts in accordance to the law. Therefore lawful good.

Second, just because a magic is negative, doesn't automatically make it evil. For instance, let's take the dark side in Star Wars. Is it the dark sides fault that the majority of its users are evil? No, it's the fault of its users for abusing its power. In moderation, the anger fueled powers the dark side offers can be wielded responsibly and for the side of good. And the light side users, the jedi, have done some pretty bad things in there time, taking children away from families, treating those who disagree with them like heretics, and getting involved in a war they should have stayed out of. Negative or dark magic doesn't automatically make it evil, it is how the magic is used.

Third, angels kill millions if not billions of demons all the time. That is genocide, yet no one cares since all demons are evil. But as this very forum tells us, not everyone believes that. Some think that demons can be reformed, therefore killing them in mass numbers is still an evil act. Angels and by extension there gods would not argue that the genocide is good, or have to admit there atrocities.

Fourth, yes, but a hobgoblin would not hesitate to kill good creatures if told to, this hypothetical ruler would, in fact he would do everything in his powerful to solve relations with good nations before resorting to violence. It's evil creatures that, in his eyes, must die before they can cause anymore damage. He cares about others, but he's not going to risk his people's lives for yours. He's still going to try to help though, just not by putting his own people in danger (which a hobgoblin wouldn't even bother with that much.)

Fifth, countless evil others, like paladins. They kill hundreds of evil creatures every day, protecting there people, but destroying countless lives in the process, plunging them all into the fiery pit, cooking them do an existence of either constant rage (the abyss) or constant mistrust and manipulation (the nine hells) and yet they're seen as lawful good.

Sixth, the biggest reason I disagree with it is that a reason is never stated. It says it's evil, but never mentions why.
Sixth part two, life is not by itself good, nor is it evil, it just is. This is why all animals and unintelligent monsters are unaligned, because there not good, bad, or neutral, they live for the sole purpose of continued existence. The same goes for death, it will bring all down eventually, which makes room for the new life to come in. So saying that good things can't be destroyers or that evil things can't be creators is just limiting.
Sixth part three, none existence I better then what could happen to you after you die, such as he'll or the abyss. I'd rather stop existing then go to either. At least nonexistence is painless.

Seventh, angels murder evil creatures all the time, and they are literally made to do what is right. But it's not considered bad because what they kill is often evil. But since it's murder, it's still evil, regardless to who it is against. But if they stood by and did nothing, demons would run a muck across the multiverse, unchallenged. So they must destroy them. The same thing applies to my LG lich, if he stood by and did nothing, innocent people would get killed. This way he can protect them with the power he has without having to kill innocents, instead killing the vile and the evil.

[Constructman]

First, alright but it still stands, what he's doing is good, and he acts in accordance to the law. Therefore lawful good.

Second, just because a magic is negative, doesn't automatically make it evil. For instance, let's take the dark side in Star Wars. Is it the dark sides fault that the majority of its users are evil? No, it's the fault of its users for abusing its power. In moderation, the anger fueled powers the dark side offers can be wielded responsibly and for the side of good. And the light side users, the jedi, have done some pretty bad things in there time, taking children away from families, treating those who disagree with them like heretics, and getting involved in a war they should have stayed out of. Negative or dark magic doesn't automatically make it evil, it is how the magic is used.

Third, angels kill millions if not billions of demons all the time. That is genocide, yet no one cares since all demons are evil. But as this very forum tells us, not everyone believes that. Some think that demons can be reformed, therefore killing them in mass numbers is still an evil act. Angels and by extension there gods would not argue that the genocide is good, or have to admit there atrocities.

Fourth, yes, but a hobgoblin would not hesitate to kill good creatures if told to, this hypothetical ruler would, in fact he would do everything in his powerful to solve relations with good nations before resorting to violence. It's evil creatures that, in his eyes, must die before they can cause anymore damage. He cares about others, but he's not going to risk his people's lives for yours. He's still going to try to help though, just not by putting his own people in danger (which a hobgoblin wouldn't even bother with that much.)

Fifth, countless evil others, like paladins. They kill hundreds of evil creatures every day, protecting there people, but destroying countless lives in the process, plunging them all into the fiery pit, cooking them do an existence of either constant rage (the abyss) or constant mistrust and manipulation (the nine hells) and yet they're seen as lawful good.

Sixth, the biggest reason I disagree with it is that a reason is never stated. It says it's evil, but never mentions why.
Sixth part two, life is not by itself good, nor is it evil, it just is. This is why all animals and unintelligent monsters are unaligned, because there not good, bad, or neutral, they live for the sole purpose of continued existence. The same goes for death, it will bring all down eventually, which makes room for the new life to come in. So saying that good things can't be destroyers or that evil things can't be creators is just limiting.
Sixth part three, none existence I better then what could happen to you after you die, such as he'll or the abyss. I'd rather stop existing then go to either. At least nonexistence is painless.

Seventh, angels murder evil creatures all the time, and they are literally made to do what is right. But it's not considered bad because what they kill is often evil. But since it's murder, it's still evil, regardless to who it is against. But if they stood by and did nothing, demons would run a muck across the multiverse, unchallenged. So they must destroy them. The same thing applies to my LG lich, if he stood by and did nothing, innocent people would get killed. This way he can protect them with the power he has without having to kill innocents, instead killing the vile and the evil.

First, the denizens of Mount Celestia (LG) and Bytopia (LGG) would disagree with your Lich; in trying to maximize the Good of everybody, he is compromising his own Goodness, and by their laws that is no good. Arcadia (LLG) might be willing to entertain his views, but there was an incident where the Harmonium tried to impose super strict order on the third layer of Arcadia, only for the entire layer to fall into Mechanus (LN) due to having the Good sucked out of it. Since then, the Harmonium have settled on Layer 2, which is also in danger of falling into Mechanus. The Lich king's actions may be quite reminiscent of that gaffe.

Second, the nature of the Dark Side is a hotly contested topic in the Star Wars fandom. Some see Ashla and Bogan, Light and Dark, as equal aspects of the Cosmic Force, while others see the Dark Side as a perversion of the Force, a defiance of its will. If it's worth anything, George Lucas holds to the latter view. However, whatever the Dark Side may be, Force users need to tap into their own aggression and hatred in order to even use it, and the abilities it grants are destructive and vampiric, in direct contradiction with the Living Force. Yes, a Force user can wield it in moderation for benevolent ends, but that is a very fine line to walk, requiring the strongest of wills. It's like taking meth to stimulate yourself as you work, even as you know that the next hit you take could be the one that gets you hooked. Nine times out of ten, using it is highly irresponsible at best.

Third, where are you getting this from? If you're talking about the Blood War, no: the Angels are not killing millions of Demons all the time. That's the Devils' job. Mount Celestia is staying out of the conflict. The last Angel to try and fight the Demons head-on was the rogue Solar Zariel, who went off half-cocked and ended up Falling due to her recklessness and stupidity. Now she is Lady of the First, Archduchess of Avernus, and a lesson to all Angels to not let their bloodlust overcome them and charge in wildly. Since then, the Angels have been content to let the Devils and Demons fight it out by themselves, as both sides are keeping each other contained within the Lower Planes. If Angels are taking to the fields of Avernus and Pazunia en masse, that's a sign that something has gone horrifically wrong; either the Abyss has rallied behind a single leader or the internal order of Baator is collapsing, and that means the Blood War is about to spiral out of control.

Fourth, there is a line between suppression and eradication in war. We in the real world have agreed on a set of rules of what is and isn't acceptable in times of war, even if many nations choose to ignore those rules. The same in the many worlds of D&D, yet in some cases there exist actual divinities to ratify those standards of what is honourable in war. Take Tempus, THE God of War in Toril.


Tempus’s favor might be randomly distributed, but over the centuries his priests have made an effort to spread and enforce a common code of warfare — to make war a thing of rules, respect for reputations, and professional behavior. This code, called Tempus’s Honor, has the purpose of making conflicts brief, decisive, and as safe as possible for those not directly involved. The rules in the code include the following: arm anyone who has need of a weapon; disparage no foe; acquit oneself with bravery; train all for battle; and don’t engage in feuds. Those who poison wells, taint fields, kill noncombatants, or engage in torture in the name of war are all considered sinners.

Tempus is Lawful Neutral. He is by no means Good, but the preemptive and thorough suppression that this Lich king is engaging in would earn his scorn. What would the Good deities of the domain of War, who are even more reluctant to freely shed blood, think of your Lich's actions?

Fifth through seventh, I don't have the time, energy, or available resources to argue right now. However, I can safely say that your views on Good and Evil are running in contradiction with the default assumptions of the Great Wheel and the worlds contained therein.

[Constructman]

This statement is really, really dangerous. Killing a person is NEVER a solution: quite the contrary, it's the most scornful admission of failure on behalf of Justice and Mercy.

The solution to the "evils" of the world would be to identify the reasons of their deranged behavior and correct them in a way that the "evil person" would be able to become a productive or at least pacifist member of the society in which we live. Punishment for the sake of punishment is just mere revenge.

If Forgotten Realms offers any support, it's the following:

The God of Justice and the God of Vengeance are distinct. Tyr is Lawful Good, while Hoar is Lawful Neutral. Their interests often align, as both deal with retribution and punishment, but Hoar's hand is indiscriminate and severe, while Tyr's is restrained by law and honesty.

But no, I don't think either would support OP's Lich King if their kingdom was in Toril. No, I think the god most likely to lend their support would be Bane.


Bane has a simple ethos: the strong have not just the right but the duty to rule over the weak. A tyrant who is able to seize power must do so, for not only does the tyrant benefit, but so do those under the tyrant’s rule. When a ruler succumbs to decadence, corruption, or decrepitude, a stronger and more suitable ruler will rise.

Bane is vilified in many legends. Throughout history, those who favor him have committed dark deeds in his name, but most people don’t worship Bane out of malice. Bane represents ambition and control, and those who have the former but lack the latter pray to him to give them strength. It is said that Bane favors those who exhibit drive and courage, and that he aids those who seek to become conquerors, carving kingdoms from the wilderness, and bringing order to the lawless.

At many times and in many places in Faerûn, the faithful of Bane have been seen as saviors for their efforts in slaughtering raiders, throwing down corrupt rulers, or saving armies on the brink of defeat. But in just as many other places, the worship of Bane has created or supported cruel dictatorships, aided mercantile monopolies, or brought about the practice of slavery where before it didn’t exist.

[Malifice]

If all those millions of people were serial killers, rapists, psychopaths, or in any way evil, then yes, it would be good. It would be millions of problems the world no longer has to deal with.

By killing them you're a genocidal monster who has murdered millions of people yourself!

Good lord. You're beyond saving.

[Millstone85]

This statement is really, really dangerous. Killing a person is NEVER a solution: quite the contrary, it's the most scornful admission of failure on behalf of Justice and Mercy.

The solution to the "evils" of the world would be to identify the reasons of their deranged behavior and correct them in a way that the "evil person" would be able to become a productive or at least pacifist member of the society in which we live. Punishment for the sake of punishment is just mere revenge.Then no adventurer can be good-aligned. Not even redemption paladins, who are prepared to slay evildoers to save other lives.

To be clear, this could be true. D&D might be fundamentally a game of murderhoboism, hiding being antiquated notions of heroism.

Personally, I think chalking up all malice to mental derangement, and/or ignorance, is really really dangerous. It is a failure to recognize there is a monster within all of us, and our responsibility in letting it loose.

[Malifice]

Then no adventurer can be good-aligned. Not even redemption paladins, who are prepared to slay evildoers to save other lives.

Killing in self defence isnt evil for gods sake.

If a demon attacks you (or someone else) you can use reasonable force (almost certainly lethal force because 'demon') to stop it.

Walking into a bandit camp and slaughtering them as they try and talk to you and offer you food, simply because they're bandits, with mo mercy given is evil.

It's the same rule thar exists in legal codes around the world. Using force (even lethal force) in self defence is OK.

Why do a minority of people struggle so damn hard with tbis concept?

[Malifice]

OP has attempted to claim murder, human sacrifice and wars of extermination and genocide (of millions of people) are 'Morally Good'.

OP care to give me a historical example? One such example will do.

For my examples of evil historical human sacrifice, genocide, murder and wars of extermination I put forward 'all of them'.

[Matuka]

By killing them you're a genocidal monster who has murdered millions of people yourself!

Good lord. You're beyond saving.

No, you are beyond saving if you'd let such horrible people run free.

[Matuka]

OP has attempted to claim murder, human sacrifice and wars of extermination and genocide (of millions of people) are 'Morally Good'.

OP care to give me a historical example? One such example will do.

For my examples of evil historical human sacrifice, genocide, murder and wars of extermination I put forward 'all of them'.
{scrubbed}

[Millstone85]

Walking into a bandit camp and slaughtering them as they try and talk to you and offer you food, simply because they're bandits, with mo mercy given is evil.So you accept the food, and maybe a nice bribe too, then listen to their exciting tales of terrorizing the region, complete with farm-burning and kidnapping. You know calling the cops isn't an option, either because this a very remote region or because the local baron doesn't care.

What do you do?

Part ways with a smile? When you die, I am sending your soul to the Lower Planes.

[Matuka]

Killing in self defence isnt evil for gods sake.

If a demon attacks you (or someone else) you can use reasonable force (almost certainly lethal force because 'demon') to stop it.

Walking into a bandit camp and slaughtering them as they try and talk to you and offer you food, simply because they're bandits, with mo mercy given is evil.

It's the same rule thar exists in legal codes around the world. Using force (even lethal force) in self defence is OK.

Why do a minority of people struggle so damn hard with tbis concept?

Ok first, that last part is an attack on a group of people, not the argument and is therefore invalid.

Second, as I've said, he doesn't go out of his way to attack people. If the bandits stay away from his people, he won't mess with them. They have done nothing to him, so why should he punish them. Even then, just stealing something is a minor crime. If that's what these bandits do while striving not to kill people, only knocking them out, then it's the local law enforcers problem, not his. If the orcs are attacking and raiding out of desperation from a lack of food, he's going to try to help them. He's not an unfeeling monster, he's going to look before he erradicates something. Like if drow start capturing his people and turning them into slaves, he's going to kill the slavers and warn the drow kingdom to back off before this gets bloody. If an orc clan attacks his kingdom when there is ample game in the fields, fresh water in there streams, and no reason given as to why, then he's going to fight back without mercy. If he is proven wrong, he'll do his best to mend the damage he's caused. He doesn't suddenly go and attack neighboring kingdoms for no reason other then there evil. He attacks when provoked.

[MaXenzie]

{scrubbed}

[Millstone85]

Unless Hitler actually killed millions of Demons and Devils that happened to look like innocent people, then I think I'll stand firm in my opinion that he was Evil. Along with anyone else that kills for some sense of "Greater good."I thought you were going to say "then the comparison is pointless, and even insulting to his victims". Anyway, that's why I am not getting into this Adolph-and-Vlad discussion.

[Scripten]

There's really not much point in arguing with OP. You can't change someone's faulty premise with logic.

[Hail Tempus]

{scrubbed}What you're describing are the actions of a lawful evil ruler. Plenty of rulers in history fall into this alignment, and many of them were beloved by their people at the time because of their ruthlessness in keeping their subjects safe from outside forces.

But someone who is willing to resort to impaling prisoners of war and who otherwise has no limits on the violence he's willing to inflict on his enemies is not going to fall under the "good" tag in the D&D alignment system (which is really the only relevant system to discuss if we're talking about the game).

A good example of a Lawful Evil ruler is Tywin Lannister in Game Of Thrones. When he was the Hand of the King, there was a period of peace and prosperity because the nobles were too afraid of his ruthlessness to rebel or rise up. The peasants wrote songs in ode to him because the fear he instilled in the nobility allowed the peasantry to live in peace. But, Tywin is in no way "Good" under D&D alignment rules.

[Malifice]

{scrubbed}

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: This thread is just way out of bounds. Locked for review.