What happens if a lich is redeemed?

[Tengu_temp]

and where does it say that the morality of the act is changed just because your feeling a different emotion?

Intention is important. Killing yourself out of despair is not evil, killing yourself purely to spite people who will miss you is. Saving a village from raiders and getting money for it is good, but saving a village from raiders only because you get money for it is neutral.

I would disagree there. While it may not be necessarily evil the potential for it to be evil exiats. To keep this in game terms the earlier parts of the BoVD outline several things defined as evil even though they are selfinflicted and harm no one else. Not all acts fall into the Evil category but self inflicted doesn't preclude the possibility of them doing so.

Can you give examples? Because I suspect this falls under what I said a few pages ago: that sometimes DND calls certain acts good or evil when they really aren't.

[Brookshw]

Can you give examples? Because I suspect this falls under what I said a few pages ago: that sometimes DND calls certain acts good or evil when they really aren't.

Yes, but I would prefer to keep this thread free of real world specifics. I'll send you a pm.

[GungHo]

Am I the only one who finds the word "necropolitan" a bit cringeworthy?

No, but I'm a fan of holiday themed ice cream.

[Lord Raziere]

Intention is important. Killing yourself out of despair is not evil, killing yourself purely to spite people who will miss you is. Saving a village from raiders and getting money for it is good, but saving a village from raiders only because you get money for it is neutral.

intent is not the same as emotion. you can have the same intent no matter what emotion you are feeling.

[AuraTwilight]

and you can't have ideas without a mind y'know? so the world was obviously one big mind, or a big god controlling everything. well in DnD, the universe itself clearly has morality. if it has morality, then it has to have a mind to think up of morality- because morality can only come from a mind, nothing else. and for something to have a mind, it must be alive on some level.

This isn't a premise a lot of fantasy RPGs buy into. Some cosmologies just have morality exist outside of minds because reasons.

therefore when your like, creating undead, making yourself a lich, or turning something into a vampire, your not debasing and defiling that thing, your hurting the universe. its alive and you driven a wound into it. your now a walking universe wound, going around spilling necromantic energies where they shouldn't be spilled around. your taking energies from an organ of the universe- the realms of the dead- and putting them into another organ, the prime material plane, where it isn't supposed to be and will only cause life to get screwed up.

Necromancy isn't inherently evil in D&D, atleast; there's Necromancy spells that don't have Evil tags and Good characters can use them without penalty. This argument doesn't work.

demons- if you haven't chosen to be one, start out as demons. none of us have any choice in what we start out as. and I think a good rule of morality that has been established by now is that you cannot morally fault people for something they had no choice in. however I'd expect any demon to seek redemption to be the greatest of exceptions, to the point where I'd speak with the player to make sure he plays it well before greenlighting it if I was DM, and I would make it very clear that 99.9999% of the rest aren't looking for redemption as well.

And if all demons were once petitioners of evil afterlives?

Poppycock. People absolutely at times do things they know they'll regret later. Willing, yes, but the internal ramifications can be immense and highly negative depending. Neutral or evil could be debated perhaps but I don't see how we can reject the internal consequences of actions even if done unto oneself.

By this argument, eating too much pizza is morally abominable because I'll get a stomachache later.

yea but thats not self-destructive.

and where does it say that the morality of the act is changed just because your feeling a different emotion?

Pretty much every form of morality that actually cares about the human condition. You know, the whole series of moral dilemmas like euthanasia or assisted suicide, or stealing bread to feed starving orphans, or whatever.

Things are wrong because they hurt people, and so goodness is to minimize human suffering. A moral system that doesn't account for the emotional and mental states of moral agents is ethical garbage.

Edit: also, you know what else is a tragedy? every villain ever made.

In what sense? I mean, at the very least fiction has villains that are just generic embodiments of evil and have no motivations for their actions beyond being elemental dickishness personified.

The Ebon Dragon is not a tragic figure. He's a pathetic crapstain on the world and deserves everything bad that happens to him and moreso. A perfect pacifist messianic archetype personification of Agape would kick him in the balls on principle.

[Lord Raziere]

In what sense? I mean, at the very least fiction has villains that are just generic embodiments of evil and have no motivations for their actions beyond being elemental dickishness personified.

The Ebon Dragon is not a tragic figure. He's a pathetic crapstain on the world and deserves everything bad that happens to him and moreso. A perfect pacifist messianic archetype personification of Agape would kick him in the balls on principle.

In the Lex Luthor, Joker, Redcloak, The Master, and basically ever villain that has ever given a chance to turn back or redeem themselves and refused sense?

every villain is given a chance to back out. to go a different path. their refusal is the tragedy of which I speak of, for many of them are competent at what they do, and if only they turned their competence towards something useful and good....but they are still evil. how many times you gonna offer them a second chance before you kill them?

The Ebon Dragon is an exception to that, and is kind of on the level with the liches here. irredeemable, like most villains, they might be tragic, but that doesn't mean they are redeemable.

[AMFV]

In the Lex Luthor, Joker, Redcloak, The Master, and basically ever villain that has ever given a chance to turn back or redeem themselves and refused sense?

every villain is given a chance to back out. to go a different path. their refusal is the tragedy of which I speak of, for many of them are competent at what they do, and if only they turned their competence towards something useful and good....but they are still evil. how many times you gonna offer them a second chance before you kill them?

The Ebon Dragon is an exception to that, and is kind of on the level with the liches here. irredeemable, like most villains, they might be tragic, but that doesn't mean they are redeemable.

Why is that? Is it the scale? Is it because you've decided that they are so evil as to be beyond redemption? There is no reason to assume that they are irredeemable, what is your criteria for redemption? A succubus is clearly not, a sith is clearly not (even when they've committed atrocities) and that was a choice, those are two instances where in popular culture and RPGs redemption has occurred, so why is a lich different?

Is it because their inherent nature changes? That they're no longer human? Then being "more machine than man" would be disqualifying, certainly being a succubus would be.

Is it because they voluntarily sacrificed their nature by committing unspeakable acts? Like murdering children, attempting to murder their pregnant spouse, and destroying entire worlds.

Is it because they're undead? Then no vampire would ever be able to gain a soul and gain redemption (also an example)

So what is it that in your mind makes them beyond redemption? If you cannot provide a criteria for what defines when something's beyond redemption, then how are we supposed to argue for the ability to redeem a creature?

[AuraTwilight]

In the Lex Luthor, Joker, Redcloak, The Master, and basically ever villain that has ever given a chance to turn back or redeem themselves and refused sense?

every villain is given a chance to back out. to go a different path. their refusal is the tragedy of which I speak of, for many of them are competent at what they do, and if only they turned their competence towards something useful and good....but they are still evil. how many times you gonna offer them a second chance before you kill them?

The Ebon Dragon is an exception to that, and is kind of on the level with the liches here. irredeemable, like most villains, they might be tragic, but that doesn't mean they are redeemable.

Okay, yea, except that's not EVERY villain.

I mean, the Ebon Dragon is an exception so that already breaks your rule. Redemption isn't possible for him, he never really had an actual chance to be redeemed because he's defined by his corruption on the most fundamental level, and he's so undeserving of pity or sympathy that he's not even tragic. He's just an *******.

Also, the Ebon Dragon can't be compared to liches because the Ebon Dragon didn't make the choice to be the Ebon Dragon. The alternative is being nothing at all.

[atemu1234]

It can't on its own, but they might be redeemable with a certain spell from the book of Exalted Deeds. I don't remember the name

[BrokenChord]

Would you kindly not put words in my mouth?

Um... My bad, I guess. Didn't even realize I was doing so. Where you not arguing the possibility of soul-mutilation, and thus an interpretation that implies the process wouldn't necessarily be Evil? If I misunderstood, please correct me, and I deeply apologize for any offense I may have caused you.

[Lord Raziere]

aren't we talking about second edition Ebon Dragon? the one that the fanbase doesn't consider to be canon, because they like 1e Ebon Dragon better, because he isn't Snidely Whiplash Incarnate? because really, I'm pretty sure even the developers expressed distaste about the current characterization of the Yozis- last I checked, they said something along the lines of the Yozis not being bound by their excellencies as much.

so yeah, I'm not going to waste time arguing about a character that is on its way out, canon-wise, and since when did Exalted aka "Anti-DnD everything as much as possible while still being fantasy" the RPG get into this discussion? I'm not going to argue over two mutually incompatible settings and how they work for this. I'm done. Think whatever you want.

[AuraTwilight]

aren't we talking about second edition Ebon Dragon? the one that the fanbase doesn't consider to be canon, because they like 1e Ebon Dragon better, because he isn't Snidely Whiplash Incarnate? because really, I'm pretty sure even the developers expressed distaste about the current characterization of the Yozis- last I checked, they said something along the lines of the Yozis not being bound by their excellencies as much.

Implying the Exalted fandom is unified on the issue~~

But be that as it may, even the 1E Ebon Dragon was still an incarnation of Yin to the absolute degree; that didn't necessarily mean eviljerk mcHitlerSatan, but it sure did make 'redemption' from what he represented fundamentally and metaphysically impossible.

so yeah, I'm not going to waste time arguing about a character that is on its way out, canon-wise, and since when did Exalted aka "Anti-DnD everything as much as possible while still being fantasy" the RPG get into this discussion? I'm not going to argue over two mutually incompatible settings and how they work for this. I'm done. Think whatever you want.

I only brought it up because you tried to make a blanket statement about all villains, ever. Whether you like it or not, that incarnation of the Ebon Dragon was canon at a point in time, and changing the canon doesn't make previous canon never-have-been-written.

[AMFV]

aren't we talking about second edition Ebon Dragon? the one that the fanbase doesn't consider to be canon, because they like 1e Ebon Dragon better, because he isn't Snidely Whiplash Incarnate? because really, I'm pretty sure even the developers expressed distaste about the current characterization of the Yozis- last I checked, they said something along the lines of the Yozis not being bound by their excellencies as much.

so yeah, I'm not going to waste time arguing about a character that is on its way out, canon-wise, and since when did Exalted aka "Anti-DnD everything as much as possible while still being fantasy" the RPG get into this discussion? I'm not going to argue over two mutually incompatible settings and how they work for this. I'm done. Think whatever you want.

You still haven't defined at what point something becomes in your eyes irredeemable. I apologize for asking again, but I don't see that we can have a productive discussion without being aware of the point where you believe that occurs. Of course it's largely a judgement call, but without knowing your criteria for this matter... we can't effectively try to demonstrate that Liches are or are not redeemable.

I'm not familiar with Exalted, but I would argue that even then, there is no such thing as an irredeemable character, in the end, and if White Wolf suggests that there is, I would argue that it's poor writing and not very good vis a vis their own typically level headed stance on morality. But again, I'm not familiar with why the character would be irredeemable.

But again, it isn't really possible for us to present constructive points without having a better idea of where redemption is no longer possible in your eyes. We'll say in D&D or in Roleplaying games in general (and if the rules are different for those then that helps too) because otherwise formulating arguments against or for this becomes something that is impossible for us to do.

[NichG]

Cosmic-scale stuff tends to need different rules anyhow. 'The being whose existence defines the nature of evil' may be irredeemable because if it became good, that would be the new evil; or because it doesn't truly have free will but rather is just a reflection of something else; or because its made out of Evilium and even if its a nice guy its going to ping as evil; or because the deity who got to define 'good' on a cosmic level decided to be a jerk and say 'he can't be a member of my club ever'. Or other things that don't really have to do with human morality.

Rather than asking about redemption in terms of alignment then, I really do think the more relevant question at the scale of the characters is 'so you meet a lich who is doing good works, seems to be an all-around nice guy, and heck, he's personally risked his existence to save the world on multiple occasions - how are you to react to this?'

As long as we're talking about things with Capital Letters, then the 'cosmically, its defined _this_ way' argument can basically remove any meaningful discussion. The far harder argument to make along those lines is to justify a human-level (rather than cosmic-level) decision that 'all liches are without exception to be destroyed if possible, no matter how they're behaving'.

Behavior is concrete and directly relevant to those involved, and there aren't really rules saying 'a lich must behave in such and such a way'. Whether or not the cosmic labels change is actually a separate question from whether, in the eyes of the lich themselves or the people around the lich, such a being can be redeemed.

Tl;dr - 'redemption' does not by necessity require having a 'Good' alignment, and so the issue of 'cosmic alignment' is separate.

[AMFV]

Cosmic-scale stuff tends to need different rules anyhow. 'The being whose existence defines the nature of evil' may be irredeemable because if it became good, that would be the new evil; or because it doesn't truly have free will but rather is just a reflection of something else; or because its made out of Evilium and even if its a nice guy its going to ping as evil; or because the deity who got to define 'good' on a cosmic level decided to be a jerk and say 'he can't be a member of my club ever'. Or other things that don't really have to do with human morality.

Rather than asking about redemption in terms of alignment then, I really do think the more relevant question at the scale of the characters is 'so you meet a lich who is doing good works, seems to be an all-around nice guy, and heck, he's personally risked his existence to save the world on multiple occasions - how are you to react to this?'

As long as we're talking about things with Capital Letters, then the 'cosmically, its defined _this_ way' argument can basically remove any meaningful discussion. The far harder argument to make along those lines is to justify a human-level (rather than cosmic-level) decision that 'all liches are without exception to be destroyed if possible, no matter how they're behaving'.

Behavior is concrete and directly relevant to those involved, and there aren't really rules saying 'a lich must behave in such and such a way'. Whether or not the cosmic labels change is actually a separate question from whether, in the eyes of the lich themselves or the people around the lich, such a being can be redeemed.

Tl;dr - 'redemption' does not by necessity require having a 'Good' alignment, and so the issue of 'cosmic alignment' is separate.

But that presents an interesting problem, if the character can behave in a good manner, then his alignment should shift to reflect that. Since alignment is generally descriptive and not the prescriptive one. So redemption does necessitate a "good" alignment, not because the redemption results from the "good" alignment, but because the alignment results from the redemption.

If otherwise, then the alignment system is neither prescriptive, since the character can perform actions that are not in line with his alignment, or descriptive, since the character is clearly not performing actions. It's meaningless, since it isn't meaningless (game-wise or characterization-wise) we must assume that it shifts when the character in question is redeemed.

[NichG]

But that presents an interesting problem, if the character can behave in a good manner, then his alignment should shift to reflect that. Since alignment is generally descriptive and not the prescriptive one. So redemption does necessitate a "good" alignment, not because the redemption results from the "good" alignment, but because the alignment results from the redemption.

If otherwise, then the alignment system is neither prescriptive, since the character can perform actions that are not in line with his alignment, or descriptive, since the character is clearly not performing actions. It's meaningless, since it isn't meaningless (game-wise or characterization-wise) we must assume that it shifts when the character in question is redeemed.

The third admissible possibility, and arguably the most likely case, is that the alignment system is descriptive of something that is not always consistent with human-scale moral philosophy. Its not meaningless, since in 90% of cases it lines up in a consistent way, but its also not a completely foolproof guide to moral decision-making because of that 10%.

[AMFV]

The third admissible possibility, and arguably the most likely case, is that the alignment system is descriptive of something that is not always consistent with human-scale moral philosophy. Its not meaningless, since in 90% of cases it lines up in a consistent way, but its also not a completely foolproof guide to moral decision-making because of that 10%.

However it's the consistency that would make it meaningless, since alignment either results from actions, intent, or behavior, a Lich has no connection with any of the lower planes, ergo it has no metaphysical link to evil. And even if and that's a big if there was, it would still make alignment meaningless.

It doesn't matter if it's a human philosophy or not, certain acts (and thoughts) are good, if the character has them they are moving towards Good, there is no way to be always doing good things and thinking Good and not be so in alignment that I am aware of.

[AuraTwilight]

I'm not familiar with Exalted, but I would argue that even then, there is no such thing as an irredeemable character, in the end, and if White Wolf suggests that there is, I would argue that it's poor writing and not very good vis a vis their own typically level headed stance on morality. But again, I'm not familiar with why the character would be irredeemable.

I'll field this. Basically the Ebon Dragon isn't a 'person' but the sentient personification of, atleast in 2nd edition Exalted, assholish dickery and lack of moral virtue. He can never be anything else without essentially mindraping him.

He's not even really a being, as metaphysically he doesn't 'exist' despite being able to act and do things. His entire existence is a lie.

Notably, liches are not this. No matter how depraved or twisted they become, they are always people with souls. :P

[Brookshw]

because people have quoted it a number of times I felt like pointing this out (though we've touched on it indirectly).

The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character

The use of a transitive verb does nothing to indicate what happens after one becomes a lich. It's not "being" a lich, it's "becoming". The passage really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand as we're assuming that the lich already exists. We're almost running into Zeno's paradox in prescribing the passage and "unspeakable evil" to the state of being a lich, in that it's only applicable to the "becoming" and if the lich is trapped in the "unspeakable evil" category it's likewise trapped in the "becoming" category and never actually
"becomes" or "is" a lich. Semantics and all that

[GolemsVoice]

That's true, but anything that became what it is via an unspeakably evil act is pretty evil after the ritual, too.

[AMFV]

That's true, but anything that became what it is via an unspeakably evil act is pretty evil after the ritual, too.

Immediately following certainly, but things can fight against their nature. Of course the lich is evil when it commits the act, but later if it redeems itself, if it makes amends...

[hamishspence]

The DMG points out that it is possible, if rare, for an Evil person to have a massive change of heart and become Neutral or even Good, all at once.

However, a case could be made that, to have such a change of heart - one must sincerely repent one's evil deeds and resolve to atone for them.

In the case of the lich, this would include whatever deed was done in order to become a lich in the first place.

[Brookshw]

That's true, but anything that became what it is via an unspeakably evil act is pretty evil after the ritual, too.

AMFV already nailed it (speaking of which, acronym for American Marine Force Veteran?). My objective was to decouple the notion that an intertransitional (intra?) Conditional state is different from a post transitional state. People have held it up as evidence so I wanted to point out the flaw in the argument.

[AMFV]

That's true, but anything that became what it is via an unspeakably evil act is pretty evil after the ritual, too.

I know I already responded to this point, but I've thought of another fairly unpleasant issue with this line of thinking... What about a creature that is born or created through an unspeakable or evil act. Many Half-Orcs are children of rape, half-fiends are descended from the purest form of evil, I would be loathe to state that something that happened at a singular point in a creature's life dictates it's existence forever, or else we'd wind up with evil babies and evil children, and that's something that I think is not entirely logical or reasonable.

Edit: Also the acronym is derived from an old Infocom text adventure.

[Feddlefew]

I know I already responded to this point, but I've thought of another fairly unpleasant issue with this line of thinking... What about a creature that is born or created through an unspeakable or evil act. Many Half-Orcs are children of rape, half-fiends are descended from the purest form of evil, I would be loathe to state that something that happened at a singular point in a creature's life dictates it's existence forever, or else we'd wind up with evil babies and evil children, and that's something that I think is not entirely logical or reasonable.

Children are perfectly capable of being evil, but in those cases their evil because of what they do and why, not because of who they are or where they came from.

Clarifying edit: By "evil" I mean children are capable of nigh-unimaginable cruelty, partially because they don't understand the ramification of their actions, and partly because sometimes no one is willing to stop them.

[Segev]

I'm not familiar with Exalted, but I would argue that even then, there is no such thing as an irredeemable character, in the end, and if White Wolf suggests that there is, I would argue that it's poor writing and not very good vis a vis their own typically level headed stance on morality. But again, I'm not familiar with why the character would be irredeemable.

The yozis are...

They're entities that have their top-level "conscious minds" defined by (and in some ways define) specific concepts and archetypes. It is not uncommon for Exalted fans to think of yozis as "idiot savants" because of their megalomonofocus on specific outlooks and specialties. The truth is more complex than that, because yozis are such complex entities that they have multiple (usually double-digit) souls that have spiritual existence and independent sentience, but nonetheless are to the yozis what our souls are to us. Moreover, their own souls are so complex that they have multiple (usually 5-7) souls of their own! These souls are, likewise, conscious, and are metaphysically similar to D&D's Outsiders in that they're spirit beings whose bodies are manifestations of their would existence.

The yozis souls and sub-souls are fully conscious beings with specialties and personalities that, as with any being, have a focus on specific personal motivations and drives. These usually represent some aspect of the greater Yozi's monofocus fractured through a lens and looked at from an odd angle (for instance, the Ebon Dragon has a soul devoted to darkness; I can't recall any other canon ones, but there theoretically could be one who is dedicated to gossip (who might have their own sub-soul who was a personification of the Journalist), another might be all about begging and a sort of metaphysical beggar.)

Through these existences, a yozi is actually much more capable and able to handle any task at genius levels on what is, for the yozi, equivalent to a sub-conscious level.

However, their most brilliant, conscious expressions of ability are in their area of monofocus, and their conscious, identifies-as-the-yozi-itself minds and bodies tend to seem blind to things outside of it (but Heaven help you if you think that means you won't have one of its souls or sub-souls coming after you if you try to exploit this supposed blind-spot).

The Ebon Dragon is the embodiment of lack-of-virtue, is the inventor of free will specifically because it enables the concept of betrayal, and exists to undermine, subvert, and corrupt. He eludes all bindings, especially those of responsibility, and he is only able to consciously perceive things through the lens of how their own qualities can lead to their self-destruction.

In a pantheon of beings who are made of pantheons of practical-gods, he is the ultimate Starscream (of Transformers fame). He is, perhaps, defined by the negative space of all that is wholesome and affirming; that is, he is everything left over when that is taken away. Paradoxically, he is fascinated by and cultivates these things in others in order to define himself in the shape left behind...but he ultimately leads these cultivations into self-destruction if permitted.

To "redeem" the Ebon Dragon would require fundamentally altering a being as vast as a world with more complexity in a corner of his subconscious than the most intelligent lich has in his entire makeup. And it would definably make the Ebon Dragon no longer the Ebon Dragon to do so.


A lich, on the other hand, if his continued existence does not somehow require ongoing acts of evil, can conceivably be redeemed without changing that he is an undead wizard with specific powers and properties.

The only way to make a lich irredeemable would be to make his continued existence require ongoing acts of evil. In this case, it wouldn't matter that he's saved the world a dozen times and engaged in seeming self-sacrifice to protect the innocent and punish the guilty; his every moment brings torment, pain, and death or comes at the cost of having to inflict the same upon others who are undeserving of it.

As written in D&D, this is not the case; a lich had to do something so horrible that he was definitely evil when he became one, but he could have a change of heart and feel guilt for it, maybe even try to make up for it, somehow. It would still be somewhat of a monumental task to repent of that evil, given its defined unspeakable nature, but it's not impossible to have that change of heart.

[AMFV]

Children are perfectly capable of being evil, but in those cases their evil because of what they do and why, not because of who they are or where they came from.

Clarifying edit: By "evil" I mean children are capable of nigh-unimaginable cruelty, partially because they don't understand the ramification of their actions, and partly because sometimes no one is willing to stop them.

But even if children, are by their circumstances inclined to act in a manner that is evil, or because they are not aware of the ramification of their actions, or because they are unsupervised. These things are all fundamentally nurture rather than nature. Which reinforces the point that evil is not a result of what one is, but what one does or thinks.

[Feddlefew]

But even if children, are by their circumstances inclined to act in a manner that is evil, or because they are not aware of the ramification of their actions, or because they are unsupervised. These things are all fundamentally nurture rather than nature. Which reinforces the point that evil is not a result of what one is, but what one does or thinks.

Yes. That's what I said.

[NichG]

However it's the consistency that would make it meaningless, since alignment either results from actions, intent, or behavior, a Lich has no connection with any of the lower planes, ergo it has no metaphysical link to evil. And even if and that's a big if there was, it would still make alignment meaningless.

Meaningless means literally 'without meaning'. That is incorrectly used here.

Something can have meaning that is difficult to interpret a particular way, meaning that is different than one expects, etc, all while still having 'meaning'. Here is an example, not an argument that this is actually consistent with D&D alignment: If the meaning of good alignment is 'does Pelor like this person or not', for example, that is still meaning. It can even still be meaningful with respect to human moral values if, generally, Pelor is a nice fellow and likes people who are helping people and not being selfish and so on, and dislikes people who murder and steal and so on. But Pelor has a particular idiosyncracy - he's a vitalist, and he has an irrational hatred of the undead.

In this case, is alignment meaningless? No, not at all - not only does it have a very specific thing it does mean, but its also consistent and predictable with its own internal rules. Is it at all related to the colloquial meaning of the word 'good' or the moral/ethical values of any particular culture? Probably - there's a wide swath of places where Pelor's views agree with that sort of colloquial 'good'. As long as you realize 'Pelor hates the undead' then you can avoid applying Pelor's judgement to undead and make your own judgement in that case, because you understand the way in which the system is biased and can correct for that bias.

Its neither 100% aligned with these ambiguous 'human moral values', nor is it 100% disaligned with them. And in general, you will never find anything 100% aligned with 'human moral values' because human moral values are not 100% aligned with themselves - different people have different opinions about this or that.

It doesn't matter if it's a human philosophy or not, certain acts (and thoughts) are good, if the character has them they are moving towards Good, there is no way to be always doing good things and thinking Good and not be so in alignment that I am aware of.

Well, you can have the (proposed) case of a 'moral event horizon', such that there are acts of evil such that your alignment will never be non-evil after committing them. Whether or not thats consistent with your personal view of morality and redemption, it's something that you can write a consistent system to describe, so as far as rules-text it's perfectly admissible.

Since we don't seem to be discussing the vagaries of the rules though, but rather the colloquial meanings of 'redemption' and 'good' and 'evil', my point is that its sort of silly to worry about alignment in particular in this case, because you can come up with a set of rules justifications that let you slap the 'evil' alignment on an inanimate rock, but that doesn't mean that rock is deserving of destruction or, well, anything in particular.

If we're going to talk about the colloquial meaning of things, we should let alignment drop entirely.

[AMFV]

Well, you can have the (proposed) case of a 'moral event horizon', such that there are acts of evil such that your alignment will never be non-evil after committing them. Whether or not thats consistent with your personal view of morality and redemption, it's something that you can write a consistent system to describe, so as far as rules-text it's perfectly admissible.

Since we don't seem to be discussing the vagaries of the rules though, but rather the colloquial meanings of 'redemption' and 'good' and 'evil', my point is that its sort of silly to worry about alignment in particular in this case, because you can come up with a set of rules justifications that let you slap the 'evil' alignment on an inanimate rock, but that doesn't mean that rock is deserving of destruction or, well, anything in particular.

If we're going to talk about the colloquial meaning of things, we should let alignment drop entirely.

Which is why I asked about what the moral event horizon would be? And what the reasons for the establishment of that criteria might be. As far as dropping the alignment might be, that would be valid if we were discussing a universe where morality is disparate from alignment, but we aren't discussing that. If we want to discuss another system of morality we must first establish what that system is, since otherwise it would fall under "real world" and be outside of the purview of these forums.

In the case of the D&D alignment system it is conducive to the discussion of morality, since we have explicit conditions for atonement and that is discussed at several points in the rules. The end state is that the discussion has clear criteria, and there are as far as I'm aware of criteria for the moral event horizon.