If a kingdom is ruled legitimately and fairly (enough) by a lich?

[Max_Killjoy]

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

And they'll all come up with something different.

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

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

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

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

[Keltest]

And they'll all come up with something different.

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



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

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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

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

[Keltest]

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

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

[Thajocoth]

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

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

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

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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

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

[Keltest]

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

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

[Segev]

And they'll all come up with something different.

Indeed, they will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tiktakkat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Milo v3]

And this is getting into another reason why I don't like it. It's thematic, not factual.

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

[Drascin]

This thread reminds me of Lord Balthazar the Undying.

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

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

[Knaight]

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

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

[eru001]

For the "Good Lich"

Can one exist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karl, the Good Lich ruler.

[The Aboleth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ImNotTrevor]

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


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

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

Not every table is at the same level of OK-ness or Revulsion of bad things. The worst possible ritual I have thusfar come up with, which involves the extreme abuse of infant children under 1 year of age in large quantities as their parents are forced to watch and are later forced to cannibalize their own offspring before being killed themselves (and this is going into minimal detail), will in some group out there just be worth a chuckle about how edgy it is.

The writers have implied the following heavily, but stopped short of outright saying it. I think this is essentially their point:

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

Simple stuff. Bears ACTUALLY SAYING, but that's the basic thrust of keeping it open. I, as a writer, don't know of any one act that would be universally perceived as unjustifiably evil 100% of the time. I did my best in my head, conjuring up images and morbid details that, frankly, I don't want to think about. And in my soul I know there's some group out there that would just find it funny. Therefore, it is not kept HIDDEN, it is kept OPEN. It's your job as a GM to handle it for YOUR TABLE. I, the writer, am not psychic and cannot make sure that your specific book has the specific ritual written in it that your whole table will agree is "totally f'ed up" and won't go to a table that will roll their eyes and go "meh, that ain't so bad."

The amount of variability on the PLAYER end is why it's not specified in the books, and is the same reason it's not specified HERE! What is Irredeemably Evil at my table might not be Irredeemably Evil at yours. So we're setting the baseline of "Becoming a Lich involves doing a thing that your table assumes is Irredeemably Evil and you would all agree on. Since there are a few dozen posters in this thread AT LEAST, we can't reasonably come to a consensus about that without getting really morbid and probably breaking forum rules thereby. So instead of doing that lengthy, unpleasant, and gross process we're just going to agree that it's something your table finds to be really, really bad."

I know you like to have every detail in front of you, but this time you'll need to take a variable. Becoming a Lich involves an action of X amount of Evil, where X is an amount of evil your personal table would all agree to be irredeemable.

It's the best we can do when not everyone will be satisfied by one answer. So fill in YOUR answer for X and carry on as if everyone has the same answer, and you'll be ready to participate.

[eru001]

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

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

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

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

[The Aboleth]

For the "Good Lich"

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

.....

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

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

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

[ImNotTrevor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Xanyo]

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

Becoming a lich is an evil act. Additionally, if the lich seems to be ruling fairly, there's an 80% chance he's doing something evil that the public is unaware of.

[Psyren]

And they'll all come up with something different.

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

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

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

[NichG]

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

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

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

[Tiktakkat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Aboleth]

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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

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

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

That's a better articulation of the problems than I was managing.

[NichG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Aboleth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Destro_Yersul]

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

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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

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

[thamolas]

If a lich is the legitimate ruler of a kingdom, has not violated the laws of the kingdom, and treats their people fairly enough (for an evil creature)... What is a paladin to do in this situation if:
They live in this kingdom?
They visit this kingdom?
The lich visits their country?

In neither country is being a lich necessarily illegal.

If the setting mirrors real life, the Paladin will be too busy killing 90% of the politicians to even bother with a friendly lich.