question on character alignment

[Shalizar]

At the moment I am making an epic campaign and the final boss is a lich, yeah I know cliché but I like, but back on subject. I have figured out why he is taking control over towns and what not. He is attempting to create a hole in the plane of existance in order to go and kill the god who created it. He wants to do this because the god left the plane of existance to decay and break down on its own. Wether he was going to restore the plane of existance or not, I dont believe so, but here is my question, would he be Chaotic Evil, or Chaotic Good?

[Canadian]

The enemy end boss is always evil.

[Assassin89]

The enemy end boss is always evil.

That is not always the case. The end boss could be neutral.

The alignment depends on what the lich wants to do with the plane afterward and how he takes control of the towns. Considering the lich's means, I would classify him as evil.

[Shalizar]

That is not always the case. The end boss could be neutral.

The alignment depends on what the lich wants to do with the plane afterward and how he takes control of the towns. Considering the lich's means, I would classify him as evil.

Well, he doesnt personally take over all the towns, he has four other people to help take over each diffrent town, but he has killed off most of the people. I am just wondering if being driven by revenge for the carelessness of the god be evil or chaotic good. If he will save the plane I havnt thought of it that far, but who knows, if my party gets that far and its a good run, I am planning of running into epic levels, and also maybe moving into divine levels, but thats just my plan.

[Canadian]

If he killed off most of the people I'd say he's evil.

[MammonAzrael]

I'm going to go with evil as well in this case.

From what you've told us, he creating the hole to kill the god that abandoned the plan it created. I wouldn't classify this as revenge, since the the god didn't slight the lich personally. I'd say the lich is trying to "bring the god to justice" for leaving the plane to decay.

This could be construed as neutral, or possibly good. But his method for going about it, killing off many towns and villages (even by proxy through his four minions) to gain control of them smacks of evil. You might be able to wriggle him into the Neutral category if that is the only possible way for the lich to gain access to the god it is trying to "discipline," but that's as far as I would go.

[Shalizar]

If he killed off most of the people I'd say he's evil.

but is killing evil if it is for the greater good? Thats what i am getting at, Assassin is fairly close to how I see it, but I am just trying to get more peoples opinions.

[NecroRebel]

but is killing evil if it is for the greater good?

Yes (usually).

In the case that you've laid out, the lich is ultimately just killing people for what amounts to no reason at all. The god in question, from what you have said, simply left the world to its own devices, and hunting down and killing it isn't even really the greater good.

Think of it this way: a person has a child, raises it to the age of, let's say 12, then leaves and intends to never see the child again. This is, of course, a very mean and bad thing to do. However, a few years later, the child hunts down and murders its parent. The child, mind you, has been living, albeit perhaps not well, since the parent left, so ultimately it isn't really justice or revenge, and certainly isn't a good thing.

This lich is like the child. It is not justified in its actions at all. It is really just killing for the sake of killing, and the "let's get revenge on Daddy" thing rings like a excuse.

Maybe, and mind that I say maybe, if the lich intended to get the god to come back and fix and maintain the world again, or at least to give up the means to fix and maintain the world, he might be Neutral on the Good-Evil axis. As is, he's Evil, though probably not Chaotic; he's seeking "fairness" and "justice" at any cost, or at least to punish the missing deity, which screams Lawful Evil to me.

[MammonAzrael]

In D&D world, where good and evil are objective, defined terms, killing any non-monster (orcs, goblins, etc) race is evil. Period. Why doesn't enter into it. The act is evil.

Yes, that is not how it works in the real world, but here good and evil are not objective, clearly defined terms.

[NecroRebel]

In D&D world, where good and evil are objective, defined terms, killing any non-monster (orcs, goblins, etc) race is evil. Period. Why doesn't enter into it. The act is evil.

Yes, that is not how it works in the real world, but here good and evil are not objective, clearly defined terms.

Fixed it for you.

It also doesn't matter who or what the victim is. Killing is Evil (though justified in some cases, making not-killing more Evil).

[MammonAzrael]

Fixed it for you.

It also doesn't matter who or what the victim is. Killing is Evil (though justified in some cases, making not-killing more Evil).

Ahh yes. I had forgotten about that joyous idea in the BoED. IIRC, it may have specified that killing was ok on "always evil" entities like demons or whatnot, but given the approach of the book, I could be wrong there, too.

[NecroRebel]

I think I remember it saying that it was OK to kill evil outsiders, but it makes no mention of other evil beings. And since Evil implies killing among other things, it is often deduced that killing is Evil, always.

...though that last bit does imply that killing evil outsiders is Evil, which is why those of us who care about alignment issues tend to ignore the BoED and BoVD

[Ozymandias]

Wasn't there a big thing about how evil unspeakable acts are de rigeur for Liches? Isn't it implied that they have to eat babies to become a lich, or something?

[Prometheus]

If the world is balanced of good and evil, I'd say that this is Chaotic Evil. If the world really is an abomination that deserves the universe really deserves suicide/homicide (i.e. almost everyone is in pain, the dead walk the earth, etc) or the actions will somehow make the world better than its Chaotic Neutral.

This reminds me of an NPC I created who wanted to destroy the universe under the theory that the universe came into existence because "something had to" and on that note "we can do better". I was going to have him destroy the world at the end of the campaign, and inform the players that the real world was "the second generation of the universe".

[Alleine]

Wasn't there a big thing about how evil unspeakable acts are de rigeur for Liches? Isn't it implied that they have to eat babies to become a lich, or something?

Yeah, lich text says they have to perform some unspeakably evil act IIRC. However the is such a thing as a good lich. Don't ask me how it works, but I could dig up the template out of one of the Dragon mags, which is where I believe it came from. Libris Mortis

EDIT: Its from LM. Doesn't go into detail though.
A lich could do a good act though. Or neutral acts. And this particular act doesn't seem good since it is the slaughter of a bunch of people supposedly to kick the butt of some God who hasn't really done anything to deserve it.

[Devils_Advocate]

On the subject of "monster races":

A lawful evil villain ... condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank.

Guide to translating alignment to English:

Good : Benevolent
Evil : Cruel
Lawful : Compliant
Chaotic : Defiant

There's nothing inherently Benevolent about doing bad things to bad people. Good is about helping others. It's Evil that's about hurting others. Of course, a whole lot of actions are hard to categorize because it's often possible to help one being by hurting another or vice versa.

One central question that must be addressed in order to categorize some acts is whether they should be categorized by expected consequences or only intended consequences.

For example: I kill a guard so I can loot the treasury. I don't want the gold so I can use it to help anyone else, I just want to hoard it all to myself because it's oh so very shiny, and I like shiny things. That's pretty clearly Evil. I'm harming the guard, and I'm not balancing that out by helping anyone else.

But what if I break into the treasury without hurting anyone? Is looting it still Evil because it causes the kingdom to fall into financial ruin, or not because that's not an intended consequence of my actions? In the first scenario I meant to kill the guard -- as a means to an end, but still, I meant to kill him and it was quite deliberate. But in this second case, the negative results of my actions aren't intended at all. They're a side-effect, albeit a predictable one. I'd be perfectly happy if the kingdom was just fine. Just so long as I get to have all those shinies.

Perhaps resolving this issue will help you to decide the alignment of the lich. If his motive is to get revenge on the god, but doing that is also expected to save a plane of existence, then maybe the alignment of that depends on how you're running alignment. (His alignment only directly depends on whether the plane actually gets saved if morality is a crapshoot.)

... Wait. Re-reading, it doesn't look like you were talking about him saving the plane from naturally falling apart, but just repairing damage that he will do to it.

... How the hell would he be even ambiguously Good-aligned, then? Where's the "greater good" there? Huh?!

[The Neoclassic]

Alignment questions are always barrels of worms on this forum, aren't they?

While I don't agree with all the assertions in each and every post, I do solidly agree with the majority here that the villain is evil. Not sure about chaotic vs. lawful (I'd need more information), but people tend to care about that axis less anyway.

[hamishspence]

BoED goes out of its way to say (several times) that its ok to kill in order to save lives, in self defence, etc, as well as stressing that Execution is not inherently Evil.

it does, however, say that killing primarily for profit, or revenge, is never Good, and that you need a better justification for going after Orcs than "they're evil." "they're killing townsfolk and we need to prevent this." for example. Thats a non-evil reason to kill monsters.

BoVD extends "killing in defense of lives" to non-evil targets- a mind-controlled or deluded enemy can be killed without it being an evil act, if not doing so will result in the immediate death of people at his hands.

[Canadian]

Dude just make it evil. Why are you trying to make things overly complicated? An evil lich just makes sense. Perfect end boss. Nice epic fight. Adventure over. Happy ending.

Peace!

[Shpadoinkle]

but here is my question, would he be Chaotic Evil, or Chaotic Good?

Does it really matter? And even if it did, you'll never get any kind of actual answer here, or, for that matter, pretty much anywhere. Like the saying goes, ask four people for thier definition of Lawful Good, and you'll get ten different answers.

[xanaphia]

Chaotic Evil.

No chance that someone who murders large groups of people for dubious reasons is good.

[hamishspence]

true, but he might be the Lesser of two evils. Like Elric- by BoVD- he's Evil, but he's also heroic some of the time as well.

(I take the view that those who murder large numbers of people for any reasons, even To Save The World, are evil, though they might be Well Intentioned Extremist form of Evil)

[MickJay]

Killing non-evil people who aren't a threat is by D&D standards evil. Sure, the lich may have some non-evil (or perhaps even good) reason for murdering people, but that doesn't change the basic fact that he's murdering them (which is evil). Using subordinates only means he doesn't want to (physically) dirty his bones.

If someone thinks that the lich doesn't qualify as evil, what would he need to do to be, without a doubt, evil? Blow up the whole plane of existence for the fun of it? On a smaller scale, it would be like wondering if someone who needed money to repair the roof of the house in which his family lived and murdered just one or two people for money was evil or not. Reason is good (he wants to protect his family from rain), but that doesn't mean the deed is any less evil.

Using "greater good" as an excuse is a standard defense for evil, except for the cases of "mwahahahah, I'm so, like, EVIL, mwahahaha, I'll kill the puppy because it's fun" evil.

Still, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find someone who would seriously argue that killing puppies for fun isn't all bad, either.

Sure, there are degrees of evil, but once you know it's evil, it's evil. All that's left is deciding if it's chaotic, neutral or lawful. Now THAT is a real problem (check discussion about what lawful is on OOTS forum...).

[Oracle_Hunter]

At the moment I am making an epic campaign and the final boss is a lich, yeah I know cliché but I like, but back on subject. I have figured out why he is taking control over towns and what not. He is attempting to create a hole in the plane of existance in order to go and kill the god who created it. He wants to do this because the god left the plane of existance to decay and break down on its own. Wether he was going to restore the plane of existance or not, I dont believe so, but here is my question, would he be Chaotic Evil, or Chaotic Good?

First, the definitions, from the SRD:

Spoiler

Show

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

So, here are the questions:
(1) Does he actively seek to avoid killing innocents?

Good characters have "respect for life" and therefore do not kill unless it is necessary. In particular a CG character would hesitate to embark on any mission that requires or ensures the death of a large number of innocents.

(2) When dealing with others, does he consider their wants & needs, or only his own.

CE characters are among the most self-centered in D&D. They don't care about what society thinks they should do, or what impact his actions would have on other people.

Now, if the Hole would result in mass devastation and death, the Lich is CE. No Good character would chance such a thing unless there was No Other Way and their impetus was on par with a Doomsday Device. Potentially stopping Entropy just isn't a good justification for surely wrecking reality.

Remember: Alignment isn't about goals, it's about methods. Depending on what you believe, you will give courses of action differing weights than people of other alignments.

[Roderick_BR]

He's killing innocent people (or ordering others to do) to create a black hole that'll likely destroy hundreds of cities/the world, to get revenge at a god because it left. Not fighting against it because the god is threatening him, just go after him cause he didn't clean his pet-planet's cage.

Evil. Simple.

[Curmudgeon]

The god who abandoned the plane to decay is Chaotic Neutral. The lich who wants to kill the god is Lawful (because he's opposing Chaos) Evil (because he's killing anybody in his way).

[ericgrau]

In D&D world, where good and evil are objective, defined terms, killing any non-monster (orcs, goblins, etc) race is evil. Period. Why doesn't enter into it. The act is evil.

Yes, that is not how it works in the real world, but here good and evil are not objective, clearly defined terms.

In the D&D world, monsters are also protected under the law, except usually evil outsiders and aberrations. So killing them is equally evil, at least in the eyes of most of the D&D populace. And thus all adventurers are pure evil, including the ones in OotS. Wait, what?

No.

Not to mention Haley killed human/halfling/elf thief's guild members, Elan killed human guards working for Kubota (sp?), V killed Kubota. Those were Elan's first human kills mainly b/c OotS hadn't fought many humans before. Roy wasn't around, and Durkon mostly heals. This killing is justified good, because all adventurers do it out of necessity. If no one ever did, evil would rule the world.

So it depends why the lich wants to kill this god. Is it justified good or not? He's only doing it b/c the god left the plane of existence to decay on its own, not because he was actually wronged or b/c the god poses any threat to existence. Thus he is killing a neutral target at worst. If not a good target that is much more justified in his actions than the lich is. i.e., he could have a real reason (unlike the lich) and he simply abandoned existence rather than lashing back like the lich. "Decaying on its own" is the fault of the plane's occupants. That makes the lich evil purely for trying to kill the god, not to mention other innocents he might kill.

It also makes the lich a very important kind of evil: justified evil. Evil never or almost never exists without justification, except in things like saturday morning cartoons. i.e., Evil does not exist without believing itself to be good. So congratulations on creating a more believable villian with character depth instead of a silly one. A lot of people don't. I blame cartoons .

[hamishspence]

the distinction is not between killing Evil and non-evil but between Killing and Murder. There are times when killing an evil creature is Murder, and times when killing a good creature would not be Murder (its being mind-controlled to attack people, for example),

Even BoED makes allowances for self-defence and defense of the lives of others from a direct threat.

and yes, Evil creatures that have what they see as good motivations, are more nuanced than Card Carrying Villains.

[Shalizar]

So everyone knows, I am no longer paying attention to this thread, and I take no responcability of this thread from this point on.

[Devils_Advocate]

the distinction is not between killing Evil and non-evil but between Killing and Murder.

Just what is that distinction? What qualifies a given killing as "murder"?