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

[Keltest]

When someone can be held morally responsible and "ping evil" for what someone else magically forced them to do -- rather than the culpability being firmly and completely placed on the one compelling them -- the moral system is broken.


When someone can "ping evil" simply because they "got some evil on them", the moral system is broken.

needing an atonement spell is not the same thing as changing alignment, and people do not "ping evil" because they were mind controlled into doing an evil deed.

This isn't the system broken, this is just a lack of understanding on your part.

[Zanos]

When someone can be held morally responsible and "ping evil" for what someone else magically forced them to do -- rather than the culpability being firmly and completely placed on the one compelling them -- the moral system is broken.


When someone can "ping evil" simply because they "got some evil on them", the moral system is broken.

Because you're thinking of it as just a moral system, when it's actually a system of planar cosmology and (meta)physical construction.

You can literally mortar a building with raw Evil or shovel it into your magical gastank as fuel, it's not a system that represents someone as moral or immoral, it's a system that declares where their actions have placed them in an eternal cosmic war.

[Max_Killjoy]

needing an atonement spell is not the same thing as changing alignment, and people do not "ping evil" because they were mind controlled into doing an evil deed.

This isn't the system broken, this is just a lack of understanding on your part.

If it's a misunderstanding, it's not mine:

Also, and I know this is in the generic RP forum, in most versions of D&D paladins/clerics have to receive atonement spells for acts they commit even when mentally controlled, which means that Good and Evil in most editions of D&D do not require an ability to choose.

Why would a person need to atone if the capitalized "cosmic forces" of "Good" and "Evil" aren't holding them morally responsible for what they did while mind-controlled?

And I know for a fact that I've read about ways that good-aligned characters can end up "pinging evil" to the Detect spells, through no fault of their own, because they basically got some evil on them.

Because you're thinking of it as just a moral system, when it's actually a system of planar cosmology and (meta)physical construction.

Yes. That's one of the broken parts. It's mixing morality with other unrelated stuff, stuff that amounts to Orange Tribe vs Blue Tribe.

[Cazero]

Because you're thinking of it as just a moral system, when it's actually a system of planar cosmology and (meta)physical construction.

You can literally mortar a building with raw Evil or shovel it into your magical gastank as fuel, it's not a system that represents someone as moral or immoral, it's a system that declares where their actions have placed them in an eternal cosmic war.

Well maybe they shouldn't have called their alignements "Good" and "Evil" if they really meant "Blue" and "Orange", or "Energy" and "Mass", or "Proton" and "Neutron", or any two others arbitrary things that aren't related in any way to morality the way Good and Evil explicitly are.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It wasn't really designed for Good vs Evil. It was designed for Law vs Chaos, which was cooler imo.

[Zanos]

Yes. That's one of the broken parts. It's mixing morality with other unrelated stuff, stuff that amounts to Orange Tribe vs Blue Tribe.

You're trying to observe an objective judgement system from a subjective view. Of course it's going to look broken. I personally think it's a pretty interesting setting mechanic, and it makes alignment discussions much easier to resolve deterministically, which is important when a game contains mechanical effects that are based on alignment.

Well maybe they shouldn't have called their alignements "Good" and "Evil" if they really meant "Blue" and "Orange", or "Energy" and "Mass", or "Proton" and "Neutron", or any two others arbitrary things that aren't related in any way to morality the way Good and Evil explicitly are.

That's a fair criticism, but I don't think it's as bad as Blue vs Orange. The scenarios where Good and Evil are out of line with modern day average joe definitions of them are corner cases rather than ubiquitous. Good is at least mostly aligned with helping people, and Evil is at least mostly aligned with hurting them.

[Segev]

Why do you need an atonement when you were compelled against your will to perform Evil acts in order to regain your "only for the pure and holy" powers?

Why do you need to undergo quarantine and cleansing rituals when you were compelled against your will to travel through a plague-ridden zone before you can regain your "do surgery on patients not infected with the plague" pass?

Same answer.

Against your will, you have been tainted.

No, you're not Evil, now. But you're not Paladin Pure, either.

It goes back to the reason atonement is needed if you shift alignments and want to be wholly converted to the new one: it absolves you of your past deeds that contravened the alignment. It makes you no longer culpable for them. This is why it only works on those who truly have forsaken the old alignment.

[halfeye]

Moral relativism essentially is amorality.

No it isn't.

If you believe that all moral systems are equally valid, then you cannot believe any of them to be valid. They all must inherently be wrong.

No, it's like frames of reference in physical relativity. If they are coherent then you can compare them.

Now, you absolutely can have one side be objectively wrong about their morality.

Two wrongs don't make a right, one being wrong doesn't make the other necessarily correct.

But a better way to deal with the D&D Good/Evil paradigm and their mutual perspectives is that the Evil side in D&D says, "Pfh, yeah, we're Evil. Being Good," they say with a sneer, "means being weak, foolish, and squandering your efforts on those who are of no use to you. The unworthy parasites."

Team Evil doesn't mind being called Evil because they don't see it as a negative thing.

In fiction there's a lot of that, it doesn't work so well in the real world.

But that doesn't make arbitrarily assigning traits to Evil behavior which render the system as having a paradox - which makes it so that a person we would all agree is a generally good man feels he's morally obligated to choose Evil - isn't an objectively incorrect assignment.

"Objective" doesn't mean "arbitrary." If you decide that your "objectively good" side includes a rule that anything Notmodeus (who is Not Asmodeus) says is Good and Right, and Notmodeus is capable of saying things like, "Kill all the human babies under the age of 2 and sacrifice them to my glory," your definition of "objectively good" is objectively WRONG.

Wrong by the code I'd go by yes, but I'm saying that there is nothing in the real world to make my code, which is probably similar to your code, universal.

Lion eats zebra, from the lion's POV that's good, from the zebra's it's bad, from mine the lion is an obligate carnivore, it's necessary for the lion, but overall it's neutral for me.

[Segev]

I am going to draw the line at actually debating moral systems in this thread. We can start another one if people want to do that.

If you wish to conclude from my unwillingness to derail this thread with that debate that I am somehow conceding a point, so be it. I'm not, but you're free to conclude that.

Godlings, we're so far off from the OP's topic that I'm not sure where to pull us back onto it. What does this have to do with whether a paladin should off the lich king or not, again?

[halfeye]

I am going to draw the line at actually debating moral systems in this thread. We can start another one if people want to do that.

I would like that, however I don't know which forum here would be appropriate, if any.

[Segev]

I would like that, however I don't know which forum here would be appropriate, if any.

I think this is an appropriate subforum; it just takes a different thread. And probably couching it in terms of developing the moral systems for RP purposes. Otherwise it might fall into general discussion?

[Mordar]

In fiction there's a lot of that, it doesn't work so well in the real world.

While there are certainly some groups that the majority see as Evil that see themselves as Good, I believe that, say, the mafia or cartels have an us-against-them mentality where they view themselves as bad guys against the [insert derogatory terms here] do-gooders. Of course, there's probably an us-against-them where they view the them as even worse bad guys.

YMMV.

[Psyren]

I think we can all at least agree that D&D alignment is very flawed and far from a perfect system, if such a thing even exists. Yes? Let's pull back from that rabbit hole and focus on the thread topic.

There certainly is a difference and I think that's the crux of the fun argument. The former is important in setting the stage for the debate that the latter brings up. More specifically, the former being discussed by a large group here is "the process of becoming a lich requires act(s) of such great evil [with a clause: "...that it MAY be impossible to redeem the actor, and..."] that the lich is a fundamentally evil creature."

So the crux of the conversation becomes "Should the Paladin act to remove the evil lich? What should factor into the Paladin's decision to act or defer action?" "Is the lich still evil" is maybe one of the more compelling factors to consider, as is "what are the ramifications for the kingdom if the lich is deposed?".

- M

The most important considerations for the paladin are:

1) Can I do something?
2) What happens if I do something?
3) What happens if I do nothing?

All of those obviously depend on the paladin's own power, the lich itself, its people, and its neighbors.

[Max_Killjoy]

You're trying to observe an objective judgement system from a subjective view.

You have that backwards.

Or at the very least, calling the D&D system "objective" just isn't accurate, at all.

[ImNotTrevor]

You have that backwards.

Or at the very least, calling the D&D system "objective" just isn't accurate, at all.

I mean... in-universe, the alignment system is definitionally Objective. Your opinion about Good and Evil don't mean jack squat to where you sit on the spectrum. It doesn't matter if you think throwing a child off a building is Good. It's an Evil act. Too bad. Please try again later. Just like how your opinion on gravity doesn't mean jack to how heavy you are or if you can fly.

For us, the players, no. Because it's an arbitrary system made up by humans for a "go in dungeons and kill things with made-up elves" game. But for the characters in the fictional universe of D&D games using alignments as written, they're Objective. Definitionally, unless you're using your own definition, at which point this argument is a waste of my time since I don't know your definition or want to spend the energy to find out.

So.... yeah. Not sure what your line of argument is, here, other than the "the rules we made up by real people" which would be, ironically, a meta-argument.

[Max_Killjoy]

I mean... in-universe, the alignment system is definitionally Objective. Your opinion about Good and Evil don't mean jack squat to where you sit on the spectrum. It doesn't matter if you think throwing a child off a building is Good. It's an Evil act. Too bad. Please try again later. Just like how your opinion on gravity doesn't mean jack to how heavy you are or if you can fly.

For us, the players, no. Because it's an arbitrary system made up by humans for a "go in dungeons and kill things with made-up elves" game. But for the characters in the fictional universe of D&D games using alignments as written, they're Objective. Definitionally, unless you're using your own definition, at which point this argument is a waste of my time since I don't know your definition or want to spend the energy to find out.

As detailed ad nauseum previously/elsewhere, it's trivially easy to find in-universe gaps between the alignment system and actual morality -- or between any set of simple-minded absolutes and actual morality. That is, it's trivially easy to find situations in which the "cosmic standard" would assert that an action is evil, but it's clearly not by any functional moral standard. Situations where all the possible actions, including doing nothing, are not bright and shiny and comfortable and nice, but rather end up causing suffering/loss/death, and the character is left with nothing better than the least bad option.

So.... yeah. Not sure what your line of argument is, here, other than the "the rules we made up by real people" which would be, ironically, a meta-argument.

My "line of argument" is that someone asserted that alignment is an objective moral system, and that I disagree, for a host of reasons that shouldn't need reiterating by now.

[Zanos]

As detailed ad nauseum previously/elsewhere, it's trivially easy to find in-universe gaps between the alignment system and actual morality -- or between any set of simple-minded absolutes and actual morality. That is, it's trivially easy to find situations in which the "cosmic standard" would assert that an action is evil, but it's clearly not by any functional moral standard.

That's entirely irrelevant to whether or not it's objective or subjective. Or perhaps to use more widely accepted terms, it's a metaphysical system of moral absolutism, as opposed to moral relativism.

[ImNotTrevor]

As detailed ad nauseum previously/elsewhere, it's trivially easy to find in-universe gaps between the alignment system and actual morality -- or between any set of simple-minded absolutes and actual morality. That is, it's trivially easy to find situations in which the "cosmic standard" would assert that an action is evil, but it's clearly not by any functional moral standard. Situations where all the possible actions, including doing nothing, are not bright and shiny and comfortable and nice, but rather end up causing suffering/loss/death, and the character is left with nothing better than the least bad option.

What you're missing is that in-universe, alignment IS morality. The alignment system? That's the objective moral code of Good and Evil. That is doesn't map to your sensibilities or current morality models in the real world is 100% irrelevant.

My "line of argument" is that someone asserted that alignment is an objective moral system, and that I disagree, for a host of reasons that shouldn't need reiterating by now.

You're definitionally wrong, but you're free to disagree. In the end, your opinions of morality mean jack diddly in the D&D-verse, hence why it's objective and not subjective.

[Belac93]

-Looks at thread title-

"Ooh, this looks like it'll be a really neat discussion!"

-Sees references to paladins and (by extension) lawful good-

"Hah. Nope! I'm out!"

In all seriousness (I'll probably never be back on this thread, just wanted to share my opinion), 'fairly enough' is generally better than most human rulers. So, unless 97% of nobles in your campaign world are evil, I would say that the paladin should have no problems.

Also, I would like to point out that the thread title says nothing about the alignment of the lich. This discussion would be made a lot happier if we removed alignment entirely, and instead put 'harsh but fair undead ruler in the same city as law-following goody-goody with a sword, what happens?'

If the paladin is smart at all, they'll leave well enough alone, or work with the lich, try and manipulate them to be nicer and fairer people. If the paladin is stupid or hasn't heard about the 'fair enough' bit, they are going to go after the lich, and get their asses kicked, because liches are CR 19 thousand year old mages, and this one happens to own a city.

[Keltest]

-Looks at thread title-

"Ooh, this looks like it'll be a really neat discussion!"

-Sees references to paladins and (by extension) lawful good-

"Hah. Nope! I'm out!"

In all seriousness (I'll probably never be back on this thread, just wanted to share my opinion), 'fairly enough' is generally better than most human rulers. So, unless 97% of nobles in your campaign world are evil, I would say that the paladin should have no problems.

Also, I would like to point out that the thread title says nothing about the alignment of the lich. This discussion would be made a lot happier if we removed alignment entirely, and instead put 'harsh but fair undead ruler in the same city as law-following goody-goody with a sword, what happens?'

If the paladin is smart at all, they'll leave well enough alone, or work with the lich, try and manipulate them to be nicer and fairer people. If the paladin is stupid or hasn't heard about the 'fair enough' bit, they are going to go after the lich, and get their asses kicked, because liches are CR 19 thousand year old mages, and this one happens to own a city.

The alignment of the lich is Evil because liches are evil by definition. They have performed an act so bad that they cannot be considered anything other than evil. The only reason there is a question at all is because of the rule that Liches must be evil to become a lich.

[Satinavian]

As much from gods as from any other sapient source.

"Legal authority" is a construct.

Usually communities. Cultures, peoples. There might be lawmakers like kings if that is part of culture, there might be old written laws or oral traditions if the community thinks this is the way to go. And yes, gods might give rules and if a culture venerates those gods those rules might become laws.

But we have a lich already established as legitimate ruler which means whatever is the law of the region or the accepted custom does agree with that.


Even if not, the authority to actually punish bad rulers for crimes would probably lie with noble assemblies/ highest priests /high courts, not with some foreign paladin. (And it doesn't get better with a not foreign paladin who is actually subject to the lich and grew up in the legal system them allows the lich to rule)

The real source of a Paladin's authority is his code. What does it authorize him to do?

Nothing at all.

The Paladin's Code is a set of rules the paladin has to abide. It might come from an order, it might be something the paladin took on himself. But it does not give the paladin any extra rights nor the authority to punish crimes.


I really don't get where people pull the idea from that a paladin has more legal authority than a fighter or a rogue. There is only one base class in the core rules where people could argue that it comes with some extra rights and that is the noble. And even that is pretty much left open.

[eru001]

I think we can all at least agree that D&D alignment is very flawed and far from a perfect system, if such a thing even exists. Yes? Let's pull back from that rabbit hole and focus on the thread topic.



The most important considerations for the paladin are:

1) Can I do something?
2) What happens if I do something?
3) What happens if I do nothing?

All of those obviously depend on the paladin's own power, the lich itself, its people, and its neighbors.

a fair set of parameters, I would rephrase as two questions though

1) Is it within my power to do anything about it?
2) Would my becoming involved aid more innocents than it would harm?

If the answer to both questions is yes. Then the paladin should become involved. If the answer to either or both is no, then the paladin should go find somewhere else to employ his or her abilities.

[Max_Killjoy]

What you're missing is that in-universe, alignment IS morality. The alignment system? That's the objective moral code of Good and Evil. That is doesn't map to your sensibilities or current morality models in the real world is 100% irrelevant.

So, "morality by fiat".

This is no different from the notion that a deity can be "good be definition". "Glob can't do bad things, Glob is by definition good, so anything Glob does, even ordering the slaughter of children and the burning of cities, or the seizure of women from other tribes for his followers to rape, even burning the entire world innocent and guilty alike... is good! Because Glob is good!"

Nothing can be "good by definition." The "goodness" or "evilness" of anything is revealed by its intentions, actions, and outcomes -- not by definitions, and not by adherence to simplistic codes.

"Cosmic forces" or "the universe" making some sort of assertion regarding morality, is no more automatically correct, than any other "actor". Rather, that assertion would be just as subject to question as any other moral assertion.


As discussed repeatedly, it's trivially easy to find examples of where the notion of alignment as an objective moral code falls apart. Any absolutist code of morality is going to run face-first into a brick wall of situations it can't handle, and start labeling people who are stuck doing the least bad thing they can "evil". For example, for a code that says "never lie" and "never kill an innocent", and calls both acts "evil", it's trivially easy to construct a situation where the adherent of that code needs to choose between at the very least deliberate omission of truth, or allowing an innocent to be killed through inaction.

Absolute, simplistic, vapid moral standards work in fiction, where the author can fastidiously avoid complex situations and moral dilemmas. In living worlds -- real, game, whatever -- where there's no author controlling everything, it doesn't take long for the lie to be exposed.

[Vitruviansquid]

Why would anyone expose this lie when they've all agreed to abide by it when they sat down to play D&D?

Seems obvious the alignment system doesn't exist for you to break it, it exists for you to try to not break it.

[Segev]

Usually communities. Cultures, peoples. There might be lawmakers like kings if that is part of culture, there might be old written laws or oral traditions if the community thinks this is the way to go. And yes, gods might give rules and if a culture venerates those gods those rules might become laws.

But we have a lich already established as legitimate ruler which means whatever is the law of the region or the accepted custom does agree with that.

Even "legitimate ruler" is an interesting construct. What makes him "legitimate?"

In reality, it's that people accept that he is.

Let's examine the USA. By near-unanimous consent, citizens of the USA agree that authority extends from the Constitution. Thus, anything legitimate must eventually route back to the Constitution for its authority. (Not touching modern controversies over what branches overstep what bounds with this. But in theory, that's where all legitimate national governmental authority comes from.)

In England, they have... fuzzier rules. There's much, much more tradition piled on top of precedent, and while a lot extends from the Magna Carta, even that theoretically derives its authority from the fact that a King once signed it and invested some of his powers into it, binding future Kings to its strictures. In theory, going by the spoken rules, the Queen of England could declare Parliament disbanded whenever she wants; in practice, she waits for Parliament to ask her to do so so they can hold a new election. In theory, Parliament is a deliberative and advisory body with some specific powers, but which only passes laws as "suggestions" to the Queen; she isn't just the US President who signs them - she's the technical originator of the legislation as she decrees it so.

In theory, if the Queen chose, she could pass laws without Parliament first writing them. She could even disband Parliament and not allow them to reform. (The Magna Carta has some strong words about such practices, though, and guarantees Lords certain rights in such events.)

In practice, if the Queen exercised these "legitimate" authorities, however, she would be shouted down and seen as acting illegitimately...because the weight of precedent in English law is such that those would not be considered legitimate actions for the monarch to take.

If a municipality in the US were to declare itself an independent state, the "legitimate" authority would be whatever they set up. Except that nobody outside that state would recognize that legitimacy. If an FBI agent acted to arrest people breaking Federal law in that rogue "city-state," he would be acting with legal authority according to the laws to which he subscribes, even though he'd be violating the laws of that city-state (which doesn't recognize his authority at all).

Clashes of authority and legitimate representation thereof between States and Church were a big deal in medieval Europe; the Anglican split from the Catholic Church was a result of such a clash. You can bet that, at the time Henry VIII did it, the Pope didn't recognize it as a legitimate act. But Britain's nobility (for the most part) did - if only because they recognized the legitimate authority of Henry's much closer armies over that of the Pope's much further away ones. Others, instead, recognized the Pope's divine authority over Henry's; obviously, there was strife over this action.

"Legitimate" authority and legal right are interesting things because they really do descend from something that is, ultimately, a construct.

I mean, power is power, of course. Even Chaotic people recognize that Tyrant Tim can boss them around because he can and will kill them if they don't do what he says. But Tyrant Tim exerting that power in Benevolent Bill's kingdom would be seen as "illegitimate" by those concerned with such things, even if he's only stopped when Bill uses his "legitimate" authority to direct greater power than Tim's to thwarting Tim's illegitimate exercise of power.

Batman could lock up his rogues in a prison of his own devising. This would be termed "false imprisonment" and thus illegitimate by American law. But if it weren't Batman, but instead Sir Bruce of the Order of the Bat, who recognized an ancient authority and duty passed down to him, he would consider his actions legitimate, because he believes his code and authority supercedes that of this newfangled "constitution."

If a Judge exercises his right of Judicial Review to declare taxes unconstitutional, many would say he's acting without legitimate authority (I mean, the 16th amendment says income taxes are a thing), but you'd still have debate over the legitimacy of Congress passing and the IRS enforcing tax law while the Judge has said "no." Who's authority really trumps? The Judge claims the Constitution lets him interpret it and that his interpretation is final (especially if he's the Supreme Court); others claim his power to "interpret" the Constitution doesn't trump their own reading of it that says he's acting in direct violation of it.


"Legitimate legal authority" stems from whatever those considering it subscribe to as the source of their code.

Heck, here on the boards we consider the RAW to be the primary source of legitimate rules authority...except when a DM steps in for his table and says otherwise. What makes the DM's authority "legitimate" is that his table agrees he's the DM. When they stop agreeing, they quit his game and either stop playing or find a new DM.

Even if not, the authority to actually punish bad rulers for crimes would probably lie with noble assemblies/ highest priests /high courts, not with some foreign paladin. (And it doesn't get better with a not foreign paladin who is actually subject to the lich and grew up in the legal system them allows the lich to rule)

What if the paladin is a member of the order that is the highest court? In Patrick Rothfuss's novel series, the Kingkiller Chronicles, there was once an order of knights who were considered above the law because they were supposedly so trusted that their judgments were wise that they could always be acting in the best interests of the land and people.

Then a King declared them criminals and ordered them exterminated, terminating their authority.

In theory, if they'd won the fight with him, they would have kept their "above the law" status, because by the law the King had no right to rescind their status. But his forces won, seized their properties, and drove them into hiding (where they weren't exterminated), and so his decree carried legitimacy.

In the end, the legitimacy is rooted in people's belief in it. People now subscribe to the notion that the king could rescind that status. If he'd failed and been executed by these knights "for the good of the kingdom," the same people probably would believe in the legitimacy of the "above the law" status of these knights.

I really don't get where people pull the idea from that a paladin has more legal authority than a fighter or a rogue. There is only one base class in the core rules where people could argue that it comes with some extra rights and that is the noble. And even that is pretty much left open.

He doesn't. If a fighter or rogue subscribes to a code that extends them authorities that local legal systems deny, the fighter or rogue still could act on them in a Lawful fashion.

This does get sticky, but as long as the character really is adhering to a set code that provides external authority governing his actions, he can be Lawful even if he is utterly rejecting the "law of the land" where he happens to be.

Consider it thusly: Paladin Paul from the Empire of Enlightenment has been granted authority as an enforcer of Emperor Edward's will, in the name of the Enlightened Gods that the Empire worships. They're genuinely an LG empire.

Despot Dirk of the People's Free and Friendly Democratic Republican Lands of Liberty is a CE tyrant who barely gives a nod to "laws" that govern his power; he really is just a semi-feudal lord who manages a system of bribery and favoritism and personal loyalty based on fear and greed to keep himself in power. He can do anything because nobody can or will stop him. But he's the legitimate ruler of the PFFDRLL, in that everybody recognizes him as such and obeys his will.

The Emperor, with the blessing of the enlightened gods, declares Dirk to be a criminal and his nation to be properly a part of the Empire. He sends Paul to arrest this criminal overlord who has too long tormented those poor people.

Paul is acting with what he considers legitimate authority when he goes into the PFFDRLL and starts working to overthrow, capture, or kill Dirk. The people of the PFFDRLL don't consider Emperor Edward, the enlightened gods, nor the Empire as legitimate sources of authority, so they don't think Paul is acting with legitimacy at all.

Who's right? Both and neither, really. "Legitimate" authority is what you make of it. If you subscribe to the system that gives it legitimacy, it's legitimate. If not, it's illegitimate.

[Milo v3]

So, "morality by fiat".

Based on how you're using that term, there is no way any system of objective morality could be anything but morality by fiat.

Also... you keep saying by fiat as if we aren't discussing tabletop roleplaying games. Basically Everything is in a way made by fiat, because it's ridiculous to try to simulate the real world in any accurate way through such an imprecise medium, let alone try to then have that be fun. Abstractions exist, RPG's are made of fiat.

[Knaight]

Consider it thusly: Paladin Paul from the Empire of Enlightenment has been granted authority as an enforcer of Emperor Edward's will, in the name of the Enlightened Gods that the Empire worships. They're genuinely an LG empire.

Despot Dirk of the People's Free and Friendly Democratic Republican Lands of Liberty is a CE tyrant who barely gives a nod to "laws" that govern his power; he really is just a semi-feudal lord who manages a system of bribery and favoritism and personal loyalty based on fear and greed to keep himself in power. He can do anything because nobody can or will stop him. But he's the legitimate ruler of the PFFDRLL, in that everybody recognizes him as such and obeys his will.

The Emperor, with the blessing of the enlightened gods, declares Dirk to be a criminal and his nation to be properly a part of the Empire. He sends Paul to arrest this criminal overlord who has too long tormented those poor people.

Paul is acting with what he considers legitimate authority when he goes into the PFFDRLL and starts working to overthrow, capture, or kill Dirk. The people of the PFFDRLL don't consider Emperor Edward, the enlightened gods, nor the Empire as legitimate sources of authority, so they don't think Paul is acting with legitimacy at all.

Who's right? Both and neither, really. "Legitimate" authority is what you make of it. If you subscribe to the system that gives it legitimacy, it's legitimate. If not, it's illegitimate.

Similarly, when Despot Dirk of the PFFDRLL decides to send someone to deal with the Emperor for being a warmongering hereditary tyrant (which he can do, because Despot Dirk at least fakes elections) who engaged in an unprovoked attack on PFFDRLL, that is also a completely legitimate action for the assassin in PFFDRLL. It's not going to come across that way to Emperor Edward, to Assassin Abigail's detriment.

[Segev]

Based on how you're using that term, there is no way any system of objective morality could be anything but morality by fiat.

Also... you keep saying by fiat as if we aren't discussing tabletop roleplaying games. Basically Everything is in a way made by fiat, because it's ridiculous to try to simulate the real world in any accurate way through such an imprecise medium, let alone try to then have that be fun. Abstractions exist, RPG's are made of fiat.

While I agree with your sentiment, if objective morality is not inherently self-contradictory, it is possible for it to exist independent of fiat. It would exist in the same way that gravity exists, or that taking proper care of your car and its maintenance will make it last longer than if you never change its oil. In a non-fiat-designed setting (i.e., non-fictional), you could derive moral rules from simply how it works.

In a fictional setting, there will always, however, be elements of fiat. Why does alomancy work on Scadrial? Because Brandon Sanderson wrote the setting to work that way. Why does the One Power have different sources for men and women in the Wheel of Time? Because Robert Jordan wrote it to work that way.

That said, you can tell if the writer of the setting has done a good job with his objective morality (or any other rules he establishes) by examining them for paradoxes. If the rules self-contradict, then they are badly designed. Given the nature of Evil and Good as perceived and defined in real-world English, if you've designed your "objective Good" such that pursuing it makes people miserable and ruins lives, or your "objective Evil" such that embracing it generally makes everybody happier and better off, you've fiat-designed things which don't fit the definitions. You really have just made them "team jerseys."

They can be matched to real-world expectations of the definitions of those words without having to resort to moral relativism. It just takes some effort and some willingness to examine base principles in nuanced situations.

[NichG]

There are different kinds of fiat though. You can declare by fiat, for example, 'in this fictional world, there is a cow on this street corner' and that's no big deal. But if you were to declare by fiat 'in this fictional world, pi=3, 1+2 = 7, and you the Fourier transform just doesn't work' ... well, you can declare it, but its unlikely that anyone would really be able to coherently abide by it.

In discussions of D&D morality, there's one element that can be freely declared by fiat, which is how the cosmos keeps score in response to people's actions and reports on that (in the form of Detect X spells, class feature access, etc). The other thing which you can't really fiat is the way in which players and characters apply their own moral reasoning. Saying 'because the cosmos defines X as Good and Y is Evil, you believe that X is something you should do and Y is something you shouldn't do (if you're Good; or vice versa if you're Evil)' is going to run the risk of creating dissonance. And you can't just rule away players experiencing dissonance.

[Segev]

There are different kinds of fiat though. You can declare by fiat, for example, 'in this fictional world, there is a cow on this street corner' and that's no big deal. But if you were to declare by fiat 'in this fictional world, pi=3, 1+2 = 7, and you the Fourier transform just doesn't work' ... well, you can declare it, but its unlikely that anyone would really be able to coherently abide by it.

The further from Newtonian physics and other easily-observable things you get, the more of this you can get away with. Declaring in a fictional setting that FTL works because Newtonian physics applies at all scales and relativity does not will work just fine for the vast majority of stories. The consequences where this would actually become problematic are hard to reach and adjust for, and the model actually matches with our normal expectations better than reality would.

In discussions of D&D morality, there's one element that can be freely declared by fiat, which is how the cosmos keeps score in response to people's actions and reports on that (in the form of Detect X spells, class feature access, etc). The other thing which you can't really fiat is the way in which players and characters apply their own moral reasoning. Saying 'because the cosmos defines X as Good and Y is Evil, you believe that X is something you should do and Y is something you shouldn't do (if you're Good; or vice versa if you're Evil)' is going to run the risk of creating dissonance. And you can't just rule away players experiencing dissonance.

Yeah, this is pretty true. The other risk you run is when your fiat declarations that "X is Good" or "Y is Evil" can be shown to have consequences which are undesirable on a grand scale to a real-world good-hearted person.

Classic examples of this sort tend to be meant to create anti-racism aesops, or to make a "too much Good is a bad thing" claim by conflating it with racism or sexism other (oft greater) evils that have been fiat-declared "good."

"The demons are actually the good guys because they're not as racist and hateful as the angels" is overdone to the point of nausea by now. But it's often the form that the "fiat objective morality auto-fails" examples take.