Is the desire to survive Evil if taken to the extreme?

[Conradine]

Once upon a time, I played as a drow named Shazuko ( Shazu for the friends ). He wasn't a noble, he was a low rank spy / assassin. I asked to my DM if being ready to do absolutely anything to survive means being of Evil alignment. He said, a bit hesitantly "Yes, not strongly evil but evil nonetheless".

So...
a character who wants to survive, but isn't callous toward other people's life, he's not actively malevolent nor sadistical, and actually try to avoid hurting people or putting others in danger... but if you corner him he'll do anything out of fear ( with remorse, with disgust even, but he'll do what he needs to do to stay alive ), is that Evil?

[denthor]

An assassin is evil. You sign a contract for money, so someone else will die. You profit off of those who do not know you, who you m as y or may not get to know in the process of them dying.

[Squark]

From an Ebberon, "Each alignment is equally represented in society," perspective, probably. It depends on what, "anything" means, though. Just killin in self defense, even if it means fighting "dirty"? Probably not evil. Get proactive with things, or kill noncombatants, though? Yeah, probably evil

Assassins are pretty much always going to ping evil uless your character was conscripted to that specific role, so that probably colored your DM's comment.

[ngilop]

I mean.. isn't that the fundamental difference between evil and good.

Evil has no limitations while good on the other hand does.

DO whatever it takes no matter what to achieve goal X, wherein the goal in and of itself is not evil.

as opposed to

Try to achieve goal X, wherein the goal in and of itself is not evil, but only if it don't hurt other people.

You are basically asking if a person who is 'the end is all that matters' is not evil and I am here like "is this cat serious right now? (https://gifimage.net/are-you-for-real-gif-13/)

[Conradine]

Shazuko was an assassin because he had to be, since he served under a drow noble house. He didn't choose his role. He took no pleasure in killing but had to follow orders. Near the end he joined a merchant convoy and left the underdark, not because too evil ( mainly ) but because it was too stressfull and dangerous.

Basically he just wanted a comfy life.


@ngilop

I consider killing in self defence, or to avoid execution, or more simply to survive, much more excusable than killing for money, or rage, hate, revenge. Survival instinct is something very basic, an evolutive imperative.
It's my viewpoint, at least.

[AvatarVecna]

It's gonna depend, but in general it's going to be at least "Neutral leaning Evil". The closest their is to a defense against this kind of single-mindedness is when you act upon this particular brand of selfishness not out of immorality, but out of amorality. Put simply, the difference between animals and non-animals is that when the latter murders some other creature for food, they understand on some level that the creature they just murdered was "just trying to survive" too - and they were, willingly or reluctantly, putting their own survival ahead of that of the other creature just trying to do the same.

We're all just trying to make it in this world, but we're not a post-scarcity society; life is a competition, and everything you have, you beat someone else to it. Did you take only what you needed, or maybe a bit more for some extra cushion in case bad times are coming, or maybe a lot more to starve off the competition and make future resource-gathering less competitive? Did you take easy pickings from the weak who couldn't keep up, or couldn't stop you from taking what they'd earned? Did you take from those that already had plenty and wouldn't be hurt by the loss, even though they'd be a bigger risk? Or did you not pay attention to who you were taking from, just striking as the opportunities presented themselves when your need became too great to ignore? Answering "yes" to any of these still means you're competing with somebody else for resources, and none of them are Good in any traditional sense, because at the end of the day it's all in service of the self. If you took a great deal from those that could bear the loss, kept what you personally needed, and distributed the rest to those also in need, that might be Good depending on proportions.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

If you're character says "My life is worth more than [X] innocent lives". Your milage may vary on where X lies (1, for instance, is probably neutral depending on circumstances, but 1,000 is certainly into Evil territory). At a certain point, letting others die for your own survival stops being neutral and starts being evil.

[King of Nowhere]

pretty much anything can be evil if taken to the extreme. if to survive you are willing to kill many innocents, then i say it's evil. a small, understandable evil. the person may not be evil, depending on the rest of their personality. but throwing someone out of a lifeboat to take their place, murdering another traveler in the wilds to steal his food and live a few more days, opening the city gates to the invading army in exchange for being spared... all those actions i'd label evil.

[Sereg]

Good and evil are about priorities. Evil is deciding that your wants and needs are more important than those of others. Good does the opposite. If you decide "my life is worth more than the life of another person" you are already being evil, yes. That said, self-defence does not count as that's just protecting yourself from evil (your attacker is the one who is devaluing your life here).

But yes, remember that a third of the people you meet are evil by DnD standards. That is one of the reasons that detect then smite is bad.

[False God]

Ultimately it comes down to have you done anything evil? Being willing to do evil probably makes you not the best person in the world, but if you haven't actually done any evil being willing to do it doesn't mean much.

Once you do those evil things for your own survival? Yeah you've crossed a line.

[Crake]

There's a difference between "Doing anything to survive" and "doing the most convenient thing to survive" or even "doing the safest thing to survive". The first one implies desperation, and I would rarely, if ever, declare anyone as evil for actions performed in a desperate attempt to survive, unless they were needlessly harmful to others. Just keep in mind that there's rarely just a single path to survival, and MOST of them don't require taking even some ambiguously evil actions. If every survival situation ends up with someone dying, or some evil act being performed, then maybe it's not just a survival instinct he's following.

[Conradine]

There's a difference between "Doing anything to survive" and "doing the most convenient thing to survive" or even "doing the safest thing to survive". The first one implies desperation, and I would rarely, if ever, declare anyone as evil for actions performed in a desperate attempt to survive, unless they were needlessly harmful to others. Just keep in mind that there's rarely just a single path to survival, and MOST of them don't require taking even some ambiguously evil actions. If every survival situation ends up with someone dying, or some evil act being performed, then maybe it's not just a survival instinct he's following.

Shazuko actively tried to do as little harm as possible. If he was born in another place he would probably have been a pleasant person. Problem is, the campaign setting was the cutthroat society of drows, so he was constantly fighting for his life. He left it as soon as he saw a fairly good opportunity, but in the maintime he killed those who was ordered to kill, including noncombatants ( although he loathed doing so ).



If you decide "my life is worth more than the life of another person" you are already being evil, yes.

The drow was more like "I'm too afraid to die to do anything else". A craven survivalist.

[Crake]

The drow was more like "I'm too afraid to die to do anything else". A craven survivalist.

I'm too afraid to do anything else would come under "doing whats safest to survive", not "do anything it takes to survive". If the safest option to survive is to kill as your overlord dictates, that's still evil.

[Mechalich]

It is at least theoretically possible to be a neutral assassin in D&D. There's a specific type of outsider, the Cuprilach Rilmani, that exist as True Neutral assassins. For mortals, however, there's the issue of motives and feedback loops. No human - or in the case of a drow, human-ish, being is capable of being a completely dispassionate killing machine, it just isn't how they work. Over time such a working environment will either cause them to embrace what they do or it will lead to a breakdown, the latter probably precipitated by being given a target they cannot effectively rationalize (classically this is a loved one or an innocent child).

Drow society is corruptive, it's nature forces moral compromises on its members to survive not only physically, but also mentally. This is particularly true because drow society is built upon slave labor and the very distinction of being a drow means you're not part of the lower social stratum. Drow characters who end up giving in to their worst impulses are indeed evil, but they're more of the broken sort of soul that ends up in Pandemonium rather than the embrace of malign sociopathy that draws other drow to the Abyss. While such character types are still 'evil' in terms of the scales of cosmic ethics, they are importantly not irredeemable. They perform evil deeds and serve the ends of evil masters because they don't know what to do otherwise and their minds have simply closed themselves to any sort of option to escape or break free as a coping mechanism. If removed from Drow society they could potentially reform themselves, at least to a measure of relatively uncaring neutrality.

The canon character that exists as the closest comparison point is probably Zaknafein Do'Urden, Drizzt's father. He was not a mean spirited individual in any way, and could even be quite kind, but he did not hesitate to carry out the often horrific commands of his Matron Mother in his context of weapons master and he never engaged in any attempt to escape because it simply never occurred to him as an option. He did ultimately, however, sacrifice himself on Drizzt's behalf. He's listed on the wiki as Chaotic Neutral, but he would definitely have qualified as evil for at least some portions of his career - especially prior to Drizzt's birth.

[GrayDeath]

I agree with most ofthe posts above.

I think however you can break it down to this:

1.: Are there alternatives for the "extreme" things he does to survive that offer at least chances to survive in the same ballpark (say the extreme most allows 90%, the next 75ish)?
If yes, and he CHOOSES the more extreme one, because it is "better for him" than yes, Evil.


2.: Does he truly have NO limit on what he would do to survive?
Would he sacrifice his children? Destroy a City? Doom the Planet?
If you can say yes to one or more of the above, Evil.


If however, he would NORMALLY do everything to survive, except "enter X" and never actively enjoys harming others, then probably Neutral with clear nonGood tendencies.

[Conradine]

1.: Are there alternatives for the "extreme" things he does to survive that offer at least chances to survive in the same ballpark (say the extreme most allows 90%, the next 75ish)?
If yes, and he CHOOSES the more extreme one, because it is "better for him" than yes, Evil.


He always tried to do as less harm as possible, even gave up some chances at petty revenge. We didn't had time to develop what happened after the party left the underdark with the merchant caravan, but I would say he's not the kind of person who sell out his comrades or clients for a bribe.

He accepted slavery in drow society as a matter of fact but he would have no part of this once reached the surface.

( by the way, he choosed to avoid the "drow intolerance" problem simply by dying his hairs black and using a clear skin paste... and used sunglasses ^ ^ )



2.: Does he truly have NO limit on what he would do to survive?
Would he sacrifice his children? Destroy a City? Doom the Planet?
If you can say yes to one or more of the above, Evil.

He would not do that with premeditation, he would feel tremendous remorse...
but in dire fear yes, he would push the red button to keep sucking air for another minute.

[Eldonauran]

Who you truly are is often revealed in the most dire of circumstances. You can be a very pleasant person, and quite likable, and still be an evil bastard when it comes down to that final moment. Personally, I have no problem with this concept, though some people do.

1: Oh, that guy is evil? But he is the nicest guy in town!
2: Yep, detect evil is pinging hard.
1: Never would have guessed.
2: Either way, the Spell doesn't lie. We'll have to watch him.

One thing to remember that one type of choice doesn't influence your entire alignment. Good characters can make evil choices, and do feel guilt and remorse when they realize what they did.

[Calthropstu]

There's a difference between "Doing anything to survive" and "doing the most convenient thing to survive" or even "doing the safest thing to survive". The first one implies desperation, and I would rarely, if ever, declare anyone as evil for actions performed in a desperate attempt to survive, unless they were needlessly harmful to others. Just keep in mind that there's rarely just a single path to survival, and MOST of them don't require taking even some ambiguously evil actions. If every survival situation ends up with someone dying, or some evil act being performed, then maybe it's not just a survival instinct he's following.

Example:
Fire breaks out in a crowded mall. 1000 people rush towards the only safe door. People get trampled in the chaos. Is anyone evil?

Taking this to the evil extreme would be the character in question stabbing everyone ahead of him.

[dancrilis]

So...
a character who wants to survive, but isn't callous toward other people's life, he's not actively malevolent nor sadistical, and actually try to avoid hurting people or putting others in danger... but if you corner him he'll do anything out of fear ( with remorse, with disgust even, but he'll do what he needs to do to stay alive ), is that Evil?

A lot of this depends on how your GM judges evil.

For example:
100 point scale, 0-30 is Evil, 30+ to 70 is Neutral, 70+ to 100 is Good.
Kill a child -30 points, point someone to the right shop for groceries +1 point, save a kid from a demon cult at great personal risk +20 points etc.
If evil is like this than your character is likely neutral (moves towards good, than saves themselves horrifically, then moves towards good etc).

For a seperate example:
Evil and Good are not points based - it doesn't matter how many children you save from demon cults if you kill one in twenty of them for the giggles, you ping as evil.
If it is like this than your character is neutral - except if they have decided to rape, kill and eat some innocent at the instruction of a dangerous foe rather then oppose the dangerous foe - in which case the extremeness of your actions likely taint you are evil (cowards acting under orders/duress are still morally responsible for their actions).

Either system has its advantages (the first has good and evil fairly balanced as it is as easy to raise as to fall - and may reflect DnD cosmology somewhat more where Good and Evil are real forces), the second might track the moral framework of the table better and so make more intuitive sense.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Survival is a neutral action, assassination is not. If you were only performing assassinations out of fear for your life, you're Neutral with a lot of blood on your hands

[Conradine]

I always tought Zacknafein was Chaotic Good?

[Particle_Man]

Are there some things that your character would rather die than do? If not, the character is evil, because some actions are so evil that it is better to die than to perform them.

If there is a line the character won't cross, then it comes down to where that line is.

Also, why doesn't the character simply run away? Dr'zzt pulled it off, after all.

[Conradine]

Also, why doesn't the character simply run away? Dr'zzt pulled it off, after all.

When he had the opportunity, he did it. He joined a merchant convoy as private guard and reached the surface.
He couldn't do that earlier because he needed money, training and some gear.

( anyhow, Shazuko would not be able to survive alone in the Underdark, he wasn't anywere near Drizzt as skills )

[Particle_Man]

Well in that case, there is room for atonement. If he did evil things to survive, and now feels guilt over them, he might be able to atone for those evil things by doing good things.

[Zombulian]

Once upon a time, I played as a drow named Shazuko ( Shazu for the friends ). He wasn't a noble, he was a low rank spy / assassin. I asked to my DM if being ready to do absolutely anything to survive means being of Evil alignment. He said, a bit hesitantly "Yes, not strongly evil but evil nonetheless".

So...
a character who wants to survive, but isn't callous toward other people's life, he's not actively malevolent nor sadistical, and actually try to avoid hurting people or putting others in danger... but if you corner him he'll do anything out of fear ( with remorse, with disgust even, but he'll do what he needs to do to stay alive ), is that Evil?

As others have said, being an assassin is really the part that makes you evil. Having a job where the whole point is to kill whoever someone wants dead in exchange for money is not only putting your well being before others’, but actively harming others, purposefully, in the process.
Survival is generally neutral. You look out for number 1, and you don’t go out of your way too much in either direction. But as an assassin, you’re doing more than surviving.

[Crake]

Example:
Fire breaks out in a crowded mall. 1000 people rush towards the only safe door. People get trampled in the chaos. Is anyone evil?

Taking this to the evil extreme would be the character in question stabbing everyone ahead of him.

The keys in this example is a) desperation, and b) understanding that people aren't being trampled intentionally, so nobody's really evil there.

Stabbing people on the other hand isn't really DRASTICALLY increasing your chance at survival, if anything, the extra mayhem it will cause, and the fact that the people in front of you that you are stabbing, are probably going to start resisting and slowing you down even further, probably means your chances of survival are actually REDUCED by doing something like that. So yeah, going full on stabby stab would be needlessly causing harm for little to none, or even negative personal gain, probably quantifies as evil.

[Mechalich]

As others have said, being an assassin is really the part that makes you evil. Having a job where the whole point is to kill whoever someone wants dead in exchange for money is not only putting your well being before others’, but actively harming others, purposefully, in the process.
Survival is generally neutral. You look out for number 1, and you don’t go out of your way too much in either direction. But as an assassin, you’re doing more than surviving.

Being an assassin as a male drow is a little bit different. Drow society is all kinds of awful (at least as traditionally imparted as 'Mezzo everywhere' even though that's not entirely accurate) and the amount of agency available to any male, even ones with seemingly autonomous jobs like assassin and wizard is decidedly limited and failure to obey can either get you hit with the magical compulsion whammy or just sacrificed to Lolth straight-up (a goddess who as on record as not caring one whit if all her followers dramatically slaughter each other). Now it's not entirely clear how drow society manages to actually function - it seems to be dependent upon a combination of someone strong enough to intimidate all comers into never daring to take them on combined with extremely long lifespans, which is phenomenally unstable - but seeing as it at least theoretically exists that is the context in which actions have to be structured.

A drow male, for instance, doesn't choose to become an assassin, it's something that they are assigned as a career path, almost certainly as a juvenile, possibly even as an infant (if the Matron Mother wishes to keep her assassin's existence 'off the books' she'll fake a death accordingly). The tricky part, however, is that survival in this environment is corrupting. Even assuming that a drow character starts off 'innocent' their society is constantly working to twist them towards darkness in a fashion that is very difficult to both resist and survive. Drizzt had Zaknafein to shield him from the a great deal of that society's influence until he went to the academy, and once there Drizzt managed to focus obsessively on his sword work (and was good enough to get away with it). He escaped drow society very shortly thereafter, in chronological terms, but it's important to recognize that even Drizzt didn't turn to good right away. He spent decades as 'the hunter' a completely amoral survivor hiding out in the underdark basically without interacting with anyone.

A character stuck in drow society is also likely to close themselves off in this way, becoming a sort of living machine stuck in an eternal present. Such characters exist on the knife's edge of chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. The Outer Plane of Pandemonium, where literally everyone is at least slightly mad, is where most such persons eventually slide down towards. D&D alignment deals extremely poorly with mental illness, but a character who has been in some sense broken by society, which accounts for an awful lot of drow outside of Lolth's grasp - several of the other drow gods have severe issues, Vhaeraun is cripplingly paranoid and Kiriansalee is stark raving crazy, and even Eilistraee isn't exactly prone to good judgment (the War of the Spider Queen and Lady Penitent novels give a good picture of just how massively twisted drow existence really is). Removed from this society, a character who has been damaged by the drow as opposed to corrupted has a chance to heal and their alignment would almost certainly gradually move towards 'upwards' just as a matter of regression to the mean.

[Darg]

In a traditional sense, good and evil is filtered through the lens that is social standard. Is killing a baby to perform a ritual to your god in order to have your own child's limb restored evil? To most people it is, but the drow would probably scowl at you for being such a goodie-two-shoes.

[Darg]

Now it's not entirely clear how drow society manages to actually function.

As far as I can tell, most of the infighting is done with slaves. Plus it's harder to kill anyone when everyone is paranoid. Not to mention the ones that are caught before full execution are punished extremely severely if not by society as a whole when necessary as drow laws are ironclad as long as there is is some one to enforce them. Basically they multiply faster than they can kill each other.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

He would not do that with premeditation, he would feel tremendous remorse...
but in dire fear yes, he would push the red button to keep sucking air for another minute.

Then he's evil. Full stop, go to Hell, go directly to Hell, do not pass Sigil, do not collect 200gp. Each of those innocent lives is just as important as his own (at least), his own self-preservation does not give him any excuse to do this.

Of course, in most D&D settings (where the afterlife is proven to exist), it also makes him incredibly stupid - to keep sucking air for another minute, he would damn himself for eternity. "It profit a man nothing to gain the world and lose his soul" is not merely a saying, it's simple and obvious fact.


In a traditional sense, good and evil is filtered through the lens that is social standard. Is killing a baby to perform a ritual to your god in order to have your own child's limb restored evil? To most people it is, but the drow would probably scowl at you for being such a goodie-two-shoes.

No it isn't. Alignment means that Good and Evil are objective truths, determined by cosmic law. If drow say killing babies is good, this does not make it so - it simply makes the drow wrong.

[Darg]

No it isn't. Alignment means that Good and Evil are objective truths, determined by cosmic law. If drow say killing babies is good, this does not make it so - it simply makes the drow wrong.

Law does not determine what is good and evil, but it can be either or. Good and Evil is just a simple dichotomy to represent how something is perceived to be harmful or helpful either to the individual or the society as a whole. {Scrubbed}

[Zombulian]

Law does not determine what is good and evil, but it can be either or. Good and Evil is just a simple dichotomy to represent how something is perceived to be harmful or helpful either to the individual or the society as a whole. {Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}

We’re talking about D&D, where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are in fact cosmic truths. There’s no room for cultural relativism when there are literal angels who can show up and disapprove of the way the Drow live.

[Irennan]

Vhaeraun is cripplingly paranoid and Kiriansalee is stark raving crazy, and even Eilistraee isn't exactly prone to good judgment (the War of the Spider Queen and Lady Penitent novels give a good picture of just how massively twisted drow existence really is). Removed from this society, a character who has been damaged by the drow as opposed to corrupted has a chance to heal and their alignment would almost certainly gradually move towards 'upwards' just as a matter of regression to the mean.

Vhaeraun actually offers a good alternative for drow who don't want a drastic change in their lifestyle, but want to be free from needless cruelty, and have a chance at surviving away from Lolth.

As for Eilistraee, she's a mother goddess to the drow, who only wants to help them heal from all the abuse they received since their childhood, rediscover all the beauty and joy that they were denied (alongside the strength in caring for each other), and find their own path in life. So many of her aspects are devoted to this; from the ritual of the Evensong, in which the drow let out their emoptions and experiences of the day for Eilistraee to listen (a moment of intimate connection that proves that they have value as people, unlike Lolth brainwashes them into believing), to her tendency to help her people in direct, practical ways in their everyday life (finding food, scaring off aggressors), to being always delicate and mindful to not force any choice on the drow, but helping them see for themselves what life can be, and choose on their own. To Eilistraee, it's not even about "redemption" (this word isn't even mentioned in Demihuman Deities or The Drow of the Underdark, for example, nor in Cunningham's depcition if her), but about helping the drow heal and be reborn from their ashes. Elaine makes this all clear in Starlights and Shadows, when it's said that, to Eilistraee(ns), it's important that each drow finds their own path, and the goddess and her followers can only help them in this journey, and never force them.

Eilistraee has also an entire order dedicated to risking their own life infiltrating Lolthite settlements just to help drow escape, and your generic preistesses has to save at least a drow per moon. With Eilistraee's own help, there's a non neglectable activity to help the drow escape from the misery forced upon them by Lolth.

Don't mind Smedman's/Atahans' depiction. First off, it has been ignored and then retconned by WoTC themselves, after being commissioned (according to Perkins) to make Drizzt "moar speshul". It's basically apocrypha at this point. Secondly, Smedman comes to the point of sniping specific, essential lines of canon of Eilistraee just to turn them upside down in the worst possible way to fit her narrative. For example, you have thgings like priestesses engaging in the mutilation males for watching the ances that they can take part in (in canon), dictation of faith, and militarism (stuff that is the hallmark of an evil faith, btw), when they're the exact opposite of all that (for example, Smedman has the priestesses demand wounded people to convert to Eilistraee before healing, when in canon priestesses are known to heal and feed all the needy and hungry met on the way, have a seasonal mission to travel around offering food, healing and their own arts to make friends with other races and because that's the right thing to do, etc...) She came to the point of moving Eilistraee's realm to another place just because her story needed so, or to entirely warp her goal and personality to contradict the very core of her belief, again to further her narrative (sacrificing the vast majority of the drow, the people for whom--in Evermeet--she chose to gave up all the comfort and luxury and power that she could have had, to walk a path of hardships that she was terrified of; whose battles she shared. All of that to *force* a needless physical change down the throats of a bunch of her followers, and passing this for "redemption", which is also really f***ed up on its own to begin with). The misanthropy of her followers is also BS, and contradicts previous representations (Cunningham's), the lore, and one of the core beliefs of Eilistraee, which is acceptance and freedom of expression.

That's just scratching the surface of Smedman's compeltely non-canon and distorted portrayal of Eilistraee. Just for a comparison, look at Elaine's portrayal.

Eilistraee helps Liriel a great deal in her journey, but she does that delicately. Eilistraee's subtle interventions lead Liriel to open her heart to the beauty of life, to sisterhood/brotherhood (for example, the first teleport spell cast by Liriel directs her to a group of "moondancers", and they are the first to welcome the young drow on the surface, and to show her genuine affection, which Liriel came to find tempting) to caring for other people, and accepting other people caring for her. The Dark Maiden helps Liriel to keep traveling, because the journey is the only way for the young priestess to open her eyes and break her chains.

In many key moments, it can be seen how Eilistraee provides Liriel with all she needs to keep following her heart, and how she genuinely cares for her. For example, it's the Dark Maiden's song that helps Liriel realize how to achieve the goal of her journey, to feel the rune that she needs to carve in the Yggdrasil so that her own magic could work on the surface. When Liriel is on the surface, Eilistraee makes her presence felt (at one time, the goddess herself even dances with the drow) to let her know that she's not alone. Another beautiful example can be found when Fyodor is on the verge of death. At that point, Liriel is so close to getting rid of Lolth (with whom she had struck a pact in exchange for power and help), yet she feels crushed because she has to summon the Spider Queen to save Fyodor, thus being forced to renew her allegiance. Instead, at that time, Eilistraee intervenes and makes Liriel glow with her own magic to bring Fyodor back from the brink of death, allowing the drow to fully embrace her own path, free from Lolth. As Elaine herself put it, to Liriel, despite her choice of becoming a priestess of Mystra, Eilistraee still symbolizes the sheer joy of existence, beauty, affection that she discovered in her journey to the surface--and that's what this goddess is supposed to be to the drow.

The interesting part is that, as I mentioned, Eilistraee's interaction with Liriel is very subtle. it's never intrusive or overt, it doesn't take much space, but in those few moments, Elaine really nails what Eilistraee is about (infinitely better than Sedman did in 4 whole books), and she delivers it perfectly.

[Darg]

We’re talking about D&D, where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are in fact cosmic truths. There’s no room for cultural relativism when there are literal angels who can show up and disapprove of the way the Drow live.

Is it though? How would you define a character that strictly adheres to a code of conduct even if the code of conduct is anathema to the laws of the land in which they live? Does a lawful person adhere to any law they come across or the laws of the territory they are a citizen of first and foremost? It's the same for Good and Evil, what one society perceives as good can be considered bad by another as it is society or the individual that defines the underlying principles. The character alignment system in D&D is a guideline for how the general society perceives and defines moral dichotomy. Altruism can be harmful. Respect for life does not imply you wish to save all life, simply that you don't want it to be squandered. Concern for the dignity of sentient life can mean that you simply don't like torture. Hell, based on a strict reading of the SRD definition of good and evil, paladins can't be good because they commit evil acts all the time. They hurt, oppress, and kill all the time. And yet society calls it good because it is being done for their benefit.

[Eldonauran]

Is it though? How would you define a character that strictly adheres to a code of conduct even if the code of conduct is anathema to the laws of the land in which they live? Does a lawful person adhere to any law they come across or the laws of the territory they are a citizen of first and foremost?
This is common misunderstanding of what is means to be Lawful. The belief that order is necessary for the benefit of all things is the corner stone to a Lawful alignment, even if those exact laws might vary from place to place. In the grand scheme of things, it raises the group above the individual. Good vs Evil morality does not come into play until you choose to interject it into the system. For example; The best outcome for the group might be the slaughter of the weaker members, to preserve the strength of the nation. That is a lawful concept (and very evil). Following a personal code of conduct does not make you any more lawful than any one else, as it is a code of conduct that applies only to you (the individual). There are notable exceptions (such as the paladin code of conduct) but that does not serve as much of an exception, because they strive to model behavior that others should mimic.


It's the same for Good and Evil, what one society perceives as good can be considered bad by another as it is society or the individual that defines the underlying principles.
Except it isnt the same. Good is about putting the desires of others before your own, and acknowledging that your own life and happiness is not more important than any one else's. Evil is putting your own desires and life above anyone else's, even when it causes substantial harm to them.

The biggest problem is that people unconsciously project a relativistic and subjective morality onto the alignment system in D&D when it is actually quite simple. We just make it complicated by trying to justify everything. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are all universal forces in the D&D universe. Trying to ignore their existence and pretend that just because one culture chooses to define something a different way, therefore alignment is wrong, is completely illogical. They are arguing with the forces of the universe and are simply wrong, no matter how much they want to believe otherwise. They are LITERALLY ignoring reality.

[Particle_Man]

He would not do that with premeditation, he would feel tremendous remorse...
but in dire fear yes, he would push the red button to keep sucking air for another minute.

Not only is this evil, but quite counterproductive since not are alignments objective forces in D&D, the afterlife is a thing that exists and is known to exist. You can literally summon outsiders and ask them what happens to people when they die. What is a minute of air vs. eternity?

[Tvtyrant]

Take the life boat example.

If you wait your turn and get the last seat, you are neutral.

If you give up your seat or go to the back of the line, you are good.

If you cut in line or push to the front, you are evil.

[Sereg]

This is common misunderstanding of what is means to be Lawful. The belief that order is necessary for the benefit of all things is the corner stone to a Lawful alignment, even if those exact laws might vary from place to place. In the grand scheme of things, it raises the group above the individual. Good vs Evil morality does not come into play until you choose to interject it into the system. For example; The best outcome for the group might be the slaughter of the weaker members, to preserve the strength of the nation. That is a lawful concept (and very evil). Following a personal code of conduct does not make you any more lawful than any one else, as it is a code of conduct that applies only to you (the individual). There are notable exceptions (such as the paladin code of conduct) but that does not serve as much of an exception, because they strive to model behavior that others should mimic.


Except it isnt the same. Good is about putting the desires of others before your own, and acknowledging that your own life and happiness is not more important than any one else's. Evil is putting your own desires and life above anyone else's, even when it causes substantial harm to them.

The biggest problem is that people unconsciously project a relativistic and subjective morality onto the alignment system in D&D when it is actually quite simple. We just make it complicated by trying to justify everything. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are all universal forces in the D&D universe. Trying to ignore their existence and pretend that just because one culture chooses to define something a different way, therefore alignment is wrong, is completely illogical. They are arguing with the forces of the universe and are simply wrong, no matter how much they want to believe otherwise. They are LITERALLY ignoring reality.

So much this. I really don't get people's problems with alignment when it really is that simple.

That said, we should not conflate "good" the alignment with "good" meaning "desirable". A culture can recognise something is good aligned while disliking that thing and deciding they prefer evil.

[Zombulian]

Is it though?

Literally, yes. Go read BoED, BoVD, and the planar books if you don't believe me.

[Darg]

The belief that order is necessary for the benefit of all things is the corner stone to a Lawful alignment, even if those exact laws might vary from place to place..

The thread was founded on the premise of actions, not the defining alignment itself. Yes, alignment is set in stone, but the whether the act is good or not is not. This may actually be where misunderstanding comes from.

The desire to survive at all costs does not make one evil and does not make one good. Let's take a very extreme example. Say you have a protagonist that can't die or the world goes boom. This protagonist doesn't want the world to end because they have family. Now comes the twist, everyone in the world is their enemy and is out to kill the protagonist because they believe that if the protagonist doesn't die the world will end. Is it evil then to want to survive at all costs because if they die billions of misguided innocents will die? Even if they are forced to torture, slaughter hundreds of thousands, and not spare noncombatants?

[hamishspence]

The thread was founded on the premise of actions, not the defining alignment itself. Yes, alignment is set in stone, but the whether the act is good or not is not. This may actually be where misunderstanding comes from.




In D&D, the ends don't justify the means.

Even to save the universe, an act of torture is still an evil act, "not sparing noncombatants" is Murder and thus an Evil act, and so on.

The character might be Neutral if their every Evil act was genuinely "for the good of innocents" but their acts are unambiguously Evil.

[Telonius]

"Is X Evil if taken to the extreme?"

Yes. Almost anything taken to the extreme is going to be Evil; that's kind of implicit in "extreme."

[zfs]

The keys in this example is a) desperation, and b) understanding that people aren't being trampled intentionally, so nobody's really evil there.

Stabbing people on the other hand isn't really DRASTICALLY increasing your chance at survival, if anything, the extra mayhem it will cause, and the fact that the people in front of you that you are stabbing, are probably going to start resisting and slowing you down even further, probably means your chances of survival are actually REDUCED by doing something like that. So yeah, going full on stabby stab would be needlessly causing harm for little to none, or even negative personal gain, probably quantifies as evil.

In the "fire in a crowded theater" example, doing what most people would do - running for the exits with abandon, potentially shoving or trampling someone - is neutral but cowardly. It would be entirely within reason for a Paladin to fall for such an act - the Good (and especially Exalted) thing to do would be to try and take command of the situation and make sure everyone else evacuates safely before you do. Evil would be intentionally impeding others for your benefit, hunting out the young, elderly and frail so that you can manhandle them out of your way, or barricading an exit once you've gone through it.

[Eldonauran]

In D&D, the ends don't justify the means.

Even to save the universe, an act of torture is still an evil act, "not sparing noncombatants" is Murder and thus an Evil act, and so on.

The character might be Neutral if their every Evil act was genuinely "for the good of innocents" but their acts are unambiguously Evil.
100%, this. The character might believe he is doing the right thing, and the entire world might agree with him that the innocents must die to save everyone else. But that does not change the nature of the action or the choice AT ALL. You must understand, and accept, that Good & Evil, Law & Chaos are just as much universal LAWS in the D&D universe, as we would accept mathematics and all the laws that are derived from them.

[Conradine]

I'll give my two cents...

Shazuko didn't choose to be an assassin ( mostly a spy but when ordered to do so, he killed ). He didn't enjoy it. He stopped as soon as he could ( although more for pratical, rather than moral, reasons ).

I think there are two kind of "I was just following orders" situation.

1- Obeying orders to gain money, privileges, respect.
2- Obeying orders because you have a machine gun behind your back.

The first can still make moral choice. The second? Too, but not totally free moral choices.

Shazuko would not face demotion, loss of prestige or scorn if he disobejed, he would have been flayed alive and feed to the spiders. I played plenty of deliberately evil characters but I felt compassion for the drow that just wanted to survive.

And smoke opium. He smoked a lot of opium. Helped to cope.



In the "fire in a crowded theater" example, doing what most people would do - running for the exits with abandon, potentially shoving or trampling someone - is neutral but cowardly.

He was the kind of person who actually helps elderly and frail people to leave as long as he thinks he can escape too.

[Eldonauran]

I'll give my two cents...

Shazuko didn't choose to be an assassin ( mostly a spy but when ordered to do so, he killed ). He didn't enjoy it. He stopped as soon as he could ( although more for pratical, rather than moral, reasons ).

*snip*

He was the kind of person who actually helps elderly and frail people to leave as long as he thinks he can escape too.
Then Shazuko is Neutral, at best. If he lacks the willingness to sacrifice his own happiness, safety, or even his life, to save or help the innocent, but he also feels remorse for the Evil actions he was forced to perform (yes, they are Evil, even if you felt you were forced to choose the option, because losing your life for making another choice is still a choice), this is a perfect example of a Neutral character on the Good/Evil axis. Even the Evil people can feel generosity towards others and help them if there is no risk to themselves. Even the Evil people can love someone strongly. But it all comes down to how far you are willing to go, to save yourself or someone else.

Shazuko is an interesting character. He is complicated, conflicted, but he knows himself even if he hates what he knows. I hope you have fun exploring his path.

[Conradine]

If he lacks the willingness to sacrifice his own happiness, safety, or even his life,

He was the kind of person who is willing to sacrifice time, money , even some happiness to avoid hurting others, to help friends or even - occasionally - random innocents.
He would not deliberately risk the lives of others. He would not take bribes to hurt people, even if he was sure to escape punishment.

But when it comes down to his life, he's too craven. Too afraid of dying.




Even the Evil people can feel generosity towards others and help them if there is no risk to themselves. Even the Evil people can love someone strongly. But it all comes down to how far you are willing to go, to save yourself or someone else.

He was actively benevolent toward others. Refused to leave behind an injured worker and carried him for hours on his shoulders. He didn't risk his life but he spent a lot of sweat and effort, and shared his limited meals.

But the sad truth is, if they happened to be pursuited by an horde of zombies, he's the kind of person who puts a crossbow bolt in the knee of his friend to slow down the horde and save himself. He would suffer tremendously, feel guilty, hate himself...
but, hey, survival is survival.


---

To be more specific: he would not blame anyone for acting that way, too. Not an hypocrite. He would never ask someone to give up life.


---

Actually, there is one thing he would not do to survive. If faced with the prospect of torture ( es. capture by Lolth priestesses ) he would rather die or even kill himself.

[Eldonauran]

He was the kind of person who is willing to sacrifice time, money , even some happiness to avoid hurting others, to help friends or even - occasionally - random innocents.
He would not deliberately risk the lives of others. He would not take bribes to hurt people, even if he was sure to escape punishment.

But when it comes down to his life, he's too craven. Too afraid of dying.
Cowardice neither excuses Evil actions nor justifies Good ones. The character lacks the moral fortitude to firmly put himself in either the Good zone or the Evil zone, but is fully capable of performing both kinds of actions. This is a Neutral character. You can tag on "with Good tendencies" if you want, if it makes you feel a bit better about it. It depends entirely if you want an objective answer to your question, or one that placates your feelings.


Actually, there is one thing he would not do to survive. If faced with the prospect of torture ( es. capture by Lolth priestesses ) he would rather die or even kill himself. That is actually the smart choice. Lolth priestesses are quite nasty.

[Talakeal]

Actually, there is one thing he would not do to survive. If faced with the prospect of torture ( es. capture by Lolth priestesses ) he would rather die or even kill himself.

But would he torture somebody else?

[Zombulian]

Cowardice neither excuses Evil actions nor justifies Good ones. The character lacks the moral fortitude to firmly put himself in either the Good zone or the Evil zone, but is fully capable of performing both kinds of actions. This is a Neutral character. You can tag on "with Good tendencies" if you want, if it makes you feel a bit better about it. It depends entirely if you want an objective answer to your question, or one that placates your feelings.

That is actually the smart choice. Lolth priestesses are quite nasty.

Obviously characters and people are more complex, but a simple way I’ve taken recently to displaying alignment is like you would with a compass. In this case, NNG. Good may be sprinkled in there, but Neutral is the primary guide for their actions.

[Eldonauran]

Obviously characters and people are more complex, but a simple way I’ve taken recently to displaying alignment is like you would with a compass. In this case, NNG. Good may be sprinkled in there, but Neutral is the primary guide for their actions.
I suppose you can do that if you are so inclined. I usually don't bother. I understand that characters (and the people that design them) are highly complex and that alignment is not prescriptive, only descriptive. The character is whatever alignment they write down on character creation and it changes based on their actions over time. One of the biggest assumptions I make is that every character (and person) is capable of (and often feels) generosity, charity, avarice, greed, malice, envy, etc, etc, etc, etc. These things do not make them a certain alignment. How they behave and act on these traits is what makes them the alignment they are, and how often they act on these traits.

So, write down N(NG) on your sheet. When you are hit with Unholy Blight and it hardly hurts you, even without making the save, you get a more direct accounting of your alignment.

[Conradine]

But would he torture somebody else?

Only if in dire fear of death and / or torture for himself. He would try and ponder every other possible option, and would never do that for greed or revenge. And if forced to do that, it would be quite traumatic for him.

But if he was - example - prisoner of devils / Lolth's priestesses and he was said "it's you or him", he would break.




Cowardice neither excuses Evil actions

Personally, I would forgive a person who betrayed me under threat of torture or execution a lot more easily than one who accepted a bribe or acted out of spite.



This is a Neutral character. You can tag on "with Good tendencies" if you want, if it makes you feel a bit better about it. It depends entirely if you want an objective answer to your question, or one that placates your feelings.

So, do you agree that's not an Evil character? I never tought he was Good. More "benevolent Neutral".

[Eldonauran]

Personally, I would forgive a person who betrayed me under threat of torture or execution a lot more easily than one who accepted a bribe or acted out of spite.Forgiveness is a personal choice, just like the behavior was that lead to the betrayal. It has nothing to do with the objective reality that D&D sets with the forces of alignment. You are using subjective morality to view the situation and your responses to it change based on the intentions or situation. It is not an unreasonable approach to dealing with betrayal and is highly empathetic, for that I applaud you.


So, do you agree that's not an Evil character? I never tought he was Good. More "benevolent Neutral".I believe I earlier said "...Neutral, at best". There are a few arguments that I could bring that would cast a lot of evidence towards a more Evil alignment, but they are somewhat more specific examples, not a full dive into the character. Since I do not use fringe examples to try and make a point, I accept that the character may be non-evil, but is certainly capable of great evil. But so is everyone.

[SquidFighter]

I read it as Evil.

Performing evil acts, even under duress, is still evil.
Now, as many others have already mentionned, one can still regret the acts after the fact and it just makes for an interesting character potentionally on a redemption arc.
The evil of the acts is not erased by regret, though.

The point is, your character doesn't need to revel in the evil it's causing, but if it performs these acts, it still taints its alignmenent towards Evil. Note that it's also true of Good acts, meaning that depending on the character's arc, it can easily be or become Neutral.

I think it more interesting to ping it Evil for play, and then actually have to work towards Good. But you know, that necessitates conscious atonement and actual effort, which seems to be at odds with the practical cravenly way your character is depicted so-far.

[BlueWitch]

ANYTHING can be Evil if taken to extreme.

[GrayDeath]

Again, if he has no li9mits in what he would do to keep himself safe/Alive, then that means he is willing to commit unspeakably Evil (and evil) Acts.
As soon as he does those things, he will be at the very best slightly south of Neutral, at the worst one of the maniacs that endanger the world for their own plans.

In D&D that makes him clearly Evil with neutral tendencies (as you cant judge people only after what they do if they can freely choose without any outer influences, and neither only after what they would do to survive).

In our more relative real world, I would call him mad/Stupid, but not Evil.

However:


ANYTHING can be Evil if taken to extreme.

[Calthropstu]

Isn't this exactly the argument a lich uses? "I value my life more than all others. As such, it is proper for me to make sacrifices to prolong my own life."

[Talakeal]

Isn't this exactly the argument a lich uses? "I value my life more than all others. As such, it is proper for me to make sacrifices to prolong my own life."

Indeed.

I was wondering when the subject of undeath would be breached, as it is the ultimate conclusion of this line of reasoning.

[Eldonauran]

Isn't this exactly the argument a lich uses? "I value my life more than all others. As such, it is proper for me to make sacrifices to prolong my own life."
Not exactly the same, but related enough to draw logical thought between the two. The way I see it, is that most Evil creatures don't give much thought towards their Evil-ness. They 'see' things a certain way, such as the value of others compared to themselves, and seek to use that value as they see fit. What I find terrifying is those Evil creatures that fully know what they are doing, and choose to do so anyway.

[dancrilis]

ANYTHING can be Evil if taken to extreme.

Most things certainty.

But I think it is a hard sell to say 'Decency can be Evil if taken to extreme'.

[Tvtyrant]

Most things certainty.

But I think it is a hard sell to say 'Decency can be Evil if taken to extreme'.

The term Decency is highly unspecific. It is kind of like saying "good is evil when taken to extremes."

[Calthropstu]

Most things certainty.

But I think it is a hard sell to say 'Decency can be Evil if taken to extreme'.

When you start forcing "decency" onto others when your particular brand of it does not coincide with another's concept of it.

[Eldonauran]

When you start forcing "decency" onto others when your particular brand of it does not coincide with another's concept of it.
Indeed. In addition, if 'decency' would prevent you from taking a stand against something that you know is wrong, just to keep things 'nice and quiet and undisturbed', you help propagate evil. Evil is quite insidious like that. It will use the limitations and restrictions that Good often imposes upon itself to paralyze the other side and trap them in predictable actions. Good is often lead by charitable emotions and a willingness to sacrifice for others. Evil takes advantage of that and uses it as a weapon.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Most things certainty.

But I think it is a hard sell to say 'Decency can be Evil if taken to extreme'.

If you start imposing it on others through force, maybe. Though it's debatable whether that's still decency being evil or just imposing behavior on others being evil.

[Conradine]

Isn't this exactly the argument a lich uses? "I value my life more than all others. As such, it is proper for me to make sacrifices to prolong my own life."

I would say it's different to fear a violent death and the will to prolong unnaturally the life through black magic.

I would go as far as to say in some way it's the opposite. Becoming undead means dying, giving up life for something else.

[zinycor]

The thing is... If your character is willing to do ANYTHING to stay alive... Then that could lead it into doing evil things.

In fact if your character is willing to do ANYTHING in order to achieve something, that could end up with such character turning evil at any point.

[Seto]

Yeah, like others have said, taking survival to the extreme leads to doing Evil things. For example, that's how you become a Lich. Being ready to do *anything* so that you won't ever stop existing.

[Conradine]

Really, I don't think lichdom is about fear of death or will to live, I think it's all about intellectual hubris.
Being a lich is not being alive. No food, no beverage, no sex, no pleasurable things like a good perfume or the feeling of silk clothes... it's a mockery of life.

[Tvtyrant]

The thing is... If your character is willing to do ANYTHING to stay alive... Then that could lead it into doing evil things.

In fact if your character is willing to do ANYTHING in order to achieve something, that could end up with such character turning evil at any point.

Netheril had this as part of their story. Ioulam's Extension or Longevity, I forget the exact spell name, basically sucked years out of other people to add it to your own. Since the Netherse didn't believe Gods were real (they thought they were just very accomplished wizards) they rejected the notion that this was evil. Eventually when spells starting failing they switched over to Lichdom, which is much the same but now you are an unchanging monster instead of an unchanging person who acts like a monster.

[Seto]

Really, I don't think lichdom is about fear of death or will to live, I think it's all about intellectual hubris.
Being a lich is not being alive. No food, no beverage, no sex, no pleasurable things like a good perfume or the feeling of silk clothes... it's a mockery of life.

I agree that it can be about intellectual hubris, or hubris in general: believing that your activity, research, quest etc., is so important that it shouldn't end with your life. It should never end, in fact. But I'm pretty sure fear of death is the other possible big reason.
As Xykon said, "anything to avoid the Big Fire below". If you're the kind of person who's considering becoming a Lich, you're knowledgeable about the afterlife in general and you know what horrors likely await you in your afterlife, specifically. My CE Tiefling Magus character is thinking about it because he's fought very hard to kill, defy and escape the demons who created him ; he's pissed off powerful Abyssal entities, and more than anything else he's terrified of his soul going to the Abyss upon death to be tortured in their hands. Same thing with Voldemort in Harry Potter, who's an alternative kind of Lich, really (see especially his incorporeal form before Volume 4). He's ready to mutilate his own soul and live a half-life, a cursed life, in order to avoid true death. So what if undeath is a mockery of life? As long as you exist...

I wouldn't make that choice, mind you. I love sensual pleasures too much, and I recognize that the transience of life gives it worth. But I'm saying that people who are ready to do *anything* to avoid death are ready to condemn themselves to eternal unlife. I'd add that in my headcanon, that's the purpose of the mysterious "too Evil to contemplate" ritual: to shed your own humanity, break yourself, reach such depths of depravity that you deserve the cursed existence you sought.

[Crake]

Really, I don't think lichdom is about fear of death or will to live, I think it's all about intellectual hubris.
Being a lich is not being alive. No food, no beverage, no sex, no pleasurable things like a good perfume or the feeling of silk clothes... it's a mockery of life.

Except, you know, liches are casters, and can cast polymorph to go ahead and enjoy all those things. If your goal is simply to live forever, there's nothing stopping someone from becoming a lich, and then using an item or other means to permanently be reshaped into a living form. Then, if you get stabbed, your soul is still neatly tucked away in your phylactery, and you'll just reform again, change yourself into a living form, and rinse and repeat.


The term Decency is highly unspecific. It is kind of like saying "good is evil when taken to extremes."

Actually, decency is quite specific.... for any given culture/society. As Calthropstu said, if your society finds it acceptable to impose their beliefs on others, or hell, if your society/culture is just straight up evil, it may be considered rather "decent" to flay your slaves alive for disobeying your commands.

[Conradine]

Except, you know, liches are casters, and can cast polymorph to go ahead and enjoy all those things. If your goal is simply to live forever, there's nothing stopping someone from becoming a lich, and then using an item or other means to permanently be reshaped into a living form. Then, if you get stabbed, your soul is still neatly tucked away in your phylactery, and you'll just reform again, change yourself into a living form, and rinse and repeat.

If it was that easy...
why we don't see even a single lich doing that?

[GrayDeath]

Because Adventures seem to require the Intelligent but Dumb Undead Menace that is easily found and recocnized, but tough to defeat? ^^


Or,even easier, because most Adventure writers only ahve a very vageue Rules Knowledge.

[Eldonauran]

If it was that easy...
why we don't see even a single lich doing that?
Perhaps liches are simply that smart and don't reveal their secrets that easily, or they lose those desires after dying and coming back.

[Talakeal]

I personally see this is the difference between vampires and liches, vampires refuse to change and desperately cling to the past and to mortal pleasures, while liches think they have risen above their mortality and grow increasingly detached and more concerned with pushing themselves into a higher state of existence.

[zinycor]

If it was that easy...
why we don't see even a single lich doing that?
Mostly because they don't care about losing things like their humanity. And Hey, maybe some of them do.

[Calthropstu]

If it was that easy...
why we don't see even a single lich doing that?

There are a couple in anime that do. The lich in kono subarushii does precisely this. Ains in overlord also does similar using illusion magic on multiple occasions. As far as D&D cannon I think I remember a lich using shapechange on a couple occasions, I forget where though.

It is, however, very very possible. Plus, lichdom isn't the only path to immortality that is completely and utterly evil. True mind switch for example. You could theoretically live forever doing this, and is a very easy way to explain it away. Hell, you could even persuade a child to LET you do it and say "hey, he was willing. He wanted to be an adult so we swapped bodies. No take backs."

[PoeticallyPsyco]

If it was that easy...
why we don't see even a single lich doing that?

How would you know? You stab an ordinary villain, they die, and years later (if ever) you meet a completely different looking villain with oddly familiar vices and even speech patterns, who seems vaguely irritated upon seeing you for some reason. It only takes a few precautions to make this essentially a perfect crime.

[NontheistCleric]

Really, I don't think lichdom is about fear of death or will to live, I think it's all about intellectual hubris.
Being a lich is not being alive. No food, no beverage, no sex, no pleasurable things like a good perfume or the feeling of silk clothes... it's a mockery of life.

In a world where undead and constructs actually exist, though, the question of what 'life' ultimately means is a little more complex.

Setting aside the fact that some people really don't live for food, drink and sex, in a D&D world, there really are creatures whose existence doesn't include many of what could be called fleshly sensations. Although it's not 'life' per se, these creatures can be just as conscious as living creatures, with goals of their own and thoughts and feelings, both physical and emotional, that might seem alien to us, but are no less real for that. The exception might be mindless varieties, but hey, mindless life exists too. In some cases, they can even reproduce independently or spontaneously arise, and conversely, living creatures in D&D worlds can also be created whole-cloth from inanimate source material.

Clearly, there are some who consider the traits of undeath to be superior to life. No food, drink or sex, perhaps, but there's no sickness, no death, less pain and certainly none of those disgusting fluids that always come out at the most inconvenient times. Is it really hubris to simply have a preference?

In short, just because being a lich or any other kind of undead is different, that doesn't necessarily make it a less valid mode of existence, or a mockery of 'life'. It can be something entirely of its own.

[Conradine]

No food, no drink, no sex...
no sleep, the pleasure of losing yourself in a warm bed when tired...
no more feeling the warmth of sunrays on your skin...
no more the pungent breeze of an autumn evening...
no more soft fur of your cat to caress...
no more acrid smell of smoke in the fireplace...
no more soaped water in an hot bath...


nah, it's not life for me.

[Eldonauran]

No food, no drink, no sex...
no sleep, the pleasure of losing yourself in a warm bed when tired...
no more feeling the warmth of sunrays on your skin...
no more the pungent breeze of an autumn evening...
no more soft fur of your cat to caress...
no more acrid smell of smoke in the fireplace...
no more soaped water in an hot bath...


nah, it's not life for me.
You'd be surprised at what the primitive instinct we call "self-preservation" would attempt for just one moment of pained existence. I suspect that what you are calling 'life' is comfort and luxury.

[Particle_Man]

Well, there are people that would rather die than X, or would rather die than live like Y. So I assume there are people that would rather die than be evil.

[NontheistCleric]

No food, no drink, no sex...
no sleep, the pleasure of losing yourself in a warm bed when tired...
no more feeling the warmth of sunrays on your skin...
no more the pungent breeze of an autumn evening...
no more soft fur of your cat to caress...
no more acrid smell of smoke in the fireplace...
no more soaped water in an hot bath...


nah, it's not life for me.

Not for you, maybe, but the point is, it might be for others.

It might even be preferable to what you consider life for them, and so, why couldn't their seeking of an undead state simply be about fear of death?

[Malphegor]

I'd say it's probably against the natural flow of the universe since there's an Inevitable dedicated to taking down those who live too long or deny death (but no Inevitable dedicated to ensuring people live their full life, or resurrecting those who've been destroyed before their time...)

but you know what, screw Inevitables, they have one (a scorpion tank thing) whose whole existence is to ensure deserts are horrible places for life despite magic making it really easy to reverse desertification. The entire 'Lawful Hitman Robot To Fix Some Aspect of the Universe' thing ought to be scrapped by any sane super-wizard with a bag full of crazy tricks to play on Mechanus' minions.


Wait- that would imply that life and continued survival is Chaotic more than evil.

[Conradine]

I suspect that what you are calling 'life' is comfort and luxury.

You would call enjoying the sun, the breeze, a fireplace, a bed, a pet... "luxury"?
I've not said golden jewelry and champagne.

[NontheistCleric]

You would call enjoying the sun, the breeze, a fireplace, a bed, a pet... "luxury"?

Is it physically possible to live without those things? Then yes, they are luxuries.

By your definition, there are people in prison who are not alive and that clearly isn't true.

Moreover, undead can enjoy all those things you listed up there, and the living can hate them.

[Eldonauran]

You would call enjoying the sun, the breeze, a fireplace, a bed, a pet... "luxury"?
I've not said golden jewelry and champagne.
Yes. As NontheistCleric stated, they are not necessary for living. If you don't think they are luxuries, I would highly suggest some self-reflection and a re-calibration of how you view luxuries. That is just my personal opinion, after all. First world problems, and such.

[Covenant12]

I have been following this thread and read all of it. D&D has often been very inconsistent on undead = evil. In 3.5 alone there are multiple examples of non-evil and even outright good undead.

But to the OP's question, technically no. The desire to survive/desire to not die are not evil, and are a basic mammal/living trait.

The actions you choose based on that desire make you evil, or not. A lich goes fully evil to avoid death. This includes an evil act left as an exercise to the reader, but presumably worse than the assassin's "kill for no good reason" prerequisite.
I can't imagine anyone who doesn't have momentary lapses of anger or jealousy on occasion. What you choose to do based on them defines alignment.

[magic9mushroom]

Now it's not entirely clear how drow society manages to actually function - it seems to be dependent upon a combination of someone strong enough to intimidate all comers into never daring to take them on combined with extremely long lifespans, which is phenomenally unstable - but seeing as it at least theoretically exists that is the context in which actions have to be structured.
Drow of the Underdark says this:


By this point, some of you might be wondering how drow society has survived at all. How can a culture this sadistic, this prone to betrayal and infighting, this bereft of any legal or moral code, possibly last for more than a few generations without obliterating itself?

The truth is, it can’t. Drow society is absolutely and utterly nonviable. By all rights, it should have murdered itself into oblivion eons ago.

It is only the will of the goddess Lolth that prevents this circumstance from coming about.

Basically, Lolth allegedly micromanages everything via divine revelation (e.g. the "who to murder to pass your Test of Lolth for the year" thing) and occasionally intervention (e.g. "suddenly, you are eaten by spiders").

DotU is awful, though, so whether you choose to believe it is entirely up to you.


Really, I don't think lichdom is about fear of death or will to live, I think it's all about intellectual hubris.
Being a lich is not being alive. No food, no beverage, no sex, no pleasurable things like a good perfume or the feeling of silk clothes... it's a mockery of life.

Remember, OotS is inaccurate in its depiction of D&D liches. They have flesh, although it's withered. According to Libris Mortis' rules, their senses of taste and smell should be fine. Touch is ruined, though.

[hamishspence]

How much flesh a lich has depends entirely on the author.

Some liches in D&D splatbooks are called out as down to just a skeleton, no flesh at all.

So it's not inaccurate to have a fleshless, skeletal lich - it's just unusual.

[Conradine]

By your definition, there are people in prison who are not alive and that clearly isn't true.

A person who is locked permanently from sunlight, outdoors, who is forced to sleep on the floor and feed distasteful chow is indeed alive but has not a life. He's being tortured.




First world problems, and such.

Not at all. Even in the middle ages, or ancient times, or modern third world countries being starved and locked from outdoor air and sunlight would have been considerated a fate worse than death. Life as a slave in the mines for example.

[GrayDeath]

You do have a strange view of prison reality.

Not eryone suffers solitary confinement in old prisons with disgusting food, there are a lot of variables except the "dont leave the prison" part, of course. ^^

[Conradine]

I'm not saying that everyone in prison suffer through this, I was answering the user who said "so people in prison has not a life".

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I think that if I were DM'ing and someone would ask me "does this make my PC evil?" I would assume they were already intending to play it as at least somewhat evil. They're just asking me if they can be super edgy while still counting as good or neutral mechanically. Add to this that the player asking wants to play a drow assassin, and they treat this as being entirely separate from their question, then yeah, they're totally planning to play it as something evil.

I could see "wants to survive at any cost" as an attribute of a good character. Even a full on palladin. It'd be a bit of a flaw for a palladin, but as long as they make a clear distinction between risking their life (which they do) and sacrificing their life (which they don't) it's only human. It might even lead to a nice personal arc that shows they're willing to change their views if enough is on the line. They end up diving into certain death to save the entire world, only to wake up in the arms of an angellic creature. Spin some story about how the creature could only help because the palladin dove in without hesitation, and hand out some glowing holy aura "the best of us" effect as a reward. Super awesome.

But yeah, if the player has to ask whether it's evil, it probably will be.

[zinycor]

No food, no drink, no sex...
no sleep, the pleasure of losing yourself in a warm bed when tired...
no more feeling the warmth of sunrays on your skin...
no more the pungent breeze of an autumn evening...
no more soft fur of your cat to caress...
no more acrid smell of smoke in the fireplace...
no more soaped water in an hot bath...


nah, it's not life for me.

Ok then... let's say your character learns a technique to paint a portrait of himself that would allow him to live forever, without getting old, and be able to survive any damage he might sustain, etc. Effectively immortal. BUT! to paint this self portrait he would need to kill one of the people he loves the most, and do so again every 7 years to keep the painting fresh, otherwise the portait would deteriorate.

Would your character paint this portrait?

[Conradine]

Ok then... let's say your character learns a technique to paint a portrait of himself that would allow him to live forever, without getting old, and be able to survive any damage he might sustain, etc. Effectively immortal. BUT! to paint this self portrait he would need to kill one of the people he loves the most, and do so again every 7 years to keep the painting fresh, otherwise the portait would deteriorate.

Would your character paint this portrait?


No.
That life would be a torture for Shazuko.
He didn't have objections at the idea of dying once reached a ( very ) old age, in his warm bedroom surrounded by sons and grandsons, or in his sleep.
What he absolutely want to avoid is a premature, violent and ( probably ) painful death.

[zinycor]

No.
That life would be a torture for Shazuko.
He didn't have objections at the idea of dying once reached a ( very ) old age, in his warm bedroom surrounded by sons and grandsons, or in his sleep.
What he absolutely want to avoid is a premature, violent and ( probably ) painful death.

Then Shazuko isn't willing to do absolutely anything in order to survive.