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

[Zanos]

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.

Lying is Chaotic, not Evil. And that code isn't violated, considering your example doesn't present "never allow an innocent to come to harm through inaction", it says "never kill an innocent." I don't lie and I don't help anyone. Code preserved. I agree with you in the sense that any code of morals that's followed absolutely to the letter at all times regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances is going to seem a little strange unless it's very particularly worded. But that doesn't make them broken, it just makes the dedicated adherents seem a tad crazy. If we do revise the code to be what you intended, where lying would save lives and your code says you should both preserve lives and not lie, you can do both, it just probably won't result in the best outcome from an outside perspective. But that's why codes exist. "Do the most practical thing in every situation" isn't a code, and if codes of moral standard are only followed when convenient they really don't have any purpose. If the code values innocent lives over its adherents lying, it should have a hierarchy of values. If those things are weighed equally the code is still internally consistent, it, again, just seems bizarre to others even if it makes perfect sense.

So it doesn't fall apart, you just don't agree with the outcomes it produces. If some innocent child was turned into plane destroying WMD by some Evil powers and you kill the child to stop it, that's an Evil action. Murdering innocents is always Evil, even if under your view it was the "least bad thing." Being Good all the time is hard, and being Good requires that you find an alternative that isn't Evil at all. It means that you don't toss away your allegiance to being Good as soon as it becomes inconvenient for you. There is no compromising, Evil is Evil and must be avoided at all costs.

Just because you don't agree with a moral or ethical system doesn't mean it's falling apart or that it's wrong. It's internally consistent. In fact, being internally consistent is it's greatest strength. You're wedded to this notion that Evil = Mean People and Good = Nice People, which might hold much of the time but isn't necessarily true. Your alignment is determined by which cosmic forces you've given a stronger foothold in the material plane through your actions. Just like if you started lightning a bunch of fires you'd bring in more energy from the Elemental Plane of Fire, by being Evil or Good you bring more of that energy into the material. You can pick Evil up. You can put Evil down. You can throw Evil at the kids on your lawn. You can drink Evil. Sometimes it even tastes good. When actions can literally produce useable magic juice you've thrown any sort of moral relativism out the window completely.

Shades of grey can still exist for people who aren't divinely inclined. Most people can't read auras, and most people probably don't really care beyond getting into their own prefered afterlife. They aren't Paladins. Hell, most people aren't even Good. The majority probably thinks Paladins are a little nutty, if often helpful.

Now with that in mind, I'll actually answer OP's question. Paladins are forces of uncompromising Good, and destroy Evil wherever it is found. In my view, which probably isn't entirely by the book, Paladins destroy Evil before they kowtow to Law. Whether or not a Paladin can tolerate a Lich ruler depends on how you're setting works.

1. In some settings, undead are always Evil, both in nature and in behavior. The Paladin destroys the Lich because it's basically made of Evil and can't be allowed to exist. It's anathematic to his very cause. I believe this is how 5e works, where the question is pretty much the same as "Would a Paladin tolerate a Devil ruling a Kingdom?"
2. The Lich, as a person, is not Evil, but undead are. Typically this is caused that a Lich itself is not Evil, but undead creatures are fueled by the plane of negative energy, and therefore bring Evil energy into the world by existing, so their existence is inherently Evil. The paladin destroys the Lich because, again, it's anathematic to his cause to allow a source of Evil to endure. This is how 3.5 works, with undead detecting as Evil and being affected by Smite Evil, even if they're Neutral or Good. Same deal with "redeemed" Devils/Demons.
3. Undead are not inherently Evil, but the Lich as a person is Evil. Paladin destroys the Lich for obvious reasons, it's the same as any other Evil ruler.
4. Neither undead or the Lich as a person are Evil. The Paladin isn't obliged to do anything because no Evil is happening.

It's important to remember that Paladin's aren't necessarily suicidal or stupid(although they can be either or both), so a level 1 Paladin probably isn't going to charge right into the Lich's throne room and challenge him to a duel. There's Evil somewhere he actually has a chance of removing, so the stuff that can actually be accomplished is going to be prioritized.

[Segev]

Max is right this far: If Writer Will fiats a system where "lying is evil" (but otherwise looks like D&D's alignment grid), and then pulls an Anne Frank scenario where the NG cleric in whose attic she's hiding is flat-out asked, yes-or-no, if Anne is hiding in his attic, he's evil for exposing her and he's evil for lying. This is a degenerate "objective" morality system.

Zanos is right to point out that just because Will can write this degenerate fiat system doesn't mean that all fiat systems are inherently degenerate. Heck, D&D's handles it as Zanos points out: lying is chaotic, not evil.

Though even that's a stretch. Technically, breaking one's word is chaotic. Deception is not necessarily aligned at all.

(One could, obviously, be a Lawful person whose code forbids speaking falsely; such things are favorites of Devils and other LE sorts who can claim they never lie while deceiving their hearts out.)

[Zanos]

Max is right this far: If Writer Will fiats a system where "lying is evil" (but otherwise looks like D&D's alignment grid), and then pulls an Anne Frank scenario where the NG cleric in whose attic she's hiding is flat-out asked, yes-or-no, if Anne is hiding in his attic, he's evil for exposing her and he's evil for lying. This is a degenerate "objective" morality system.

"Yes, but you'll never get to her" followed by violence is still a valid response under such a system in this scenario. Heroes taking a non-obvious and potentially personally dangerous option to get out of nasty scenarios is a pretty well established storytelling trope. You could write a code or contrive a scenario where no option is the "right" option, but it would take some doing, and I think you would have to be doing it intentionally.

[Mordar]

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.

I'd like to throw more detail (and sticky red tape) in the mix:

1. Should I, the paladin, do something?
2. Can I, the paladin, do something?
3. What happens to the kingdom/world if I, the paladin, do something?
4. What happens to the kingdom/world if I, the paladin, do nothing?
5. What happens to the paladin if he destroys the lich and the ensuing vacuum creates a horrible civil war/worse ruler?

Also, regarding legitimate authority: This isn't some idealized political utopia where authority comes from the consent of the governed. This is a fictional setting where gods are real things...where mind-altering magic is a real thing...where force of arms is a legitimate authority. And most interestingly to this discussion, multiple legitimate authorities exist and can/will come in direct conflict. That the OP framed the question including the ideas of the Paladin "just visiting" the kingdom as well as living in the kingdom speaks, I think, to this topic.

- M

[Max_Killjoy]

Lying is Chaotic, not Evil. And that code isn't violated, considering your example doesn't present "never allow an innocent to come to harm through inaction", it says "never kill an innocent." I don't lie and I don't help anyone. Code preserved. I agree with you in the sense that any code of morals that's followed absolutely to the letter at all times regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances is going to seem a little strange unless it's very particularly worded. But that doesn't make them broken, it just makes the dedicated adherents seem a tad crazy. If we do revise the code to be what you intended, where lying would save lives and your code says you should both preserve lives and not lie, you can do both, it just probably won't result in the best outcome from an outside perspective. But that's why codes exist. "Do the most practical thing in every situation" isn't a code, and if codes of moral standard are only followed when convenient they really don't have any purpose. If the code values innocent lives over its adherents lying, it should have a hierarchy of values. If those things are weighed equally the code is still internally consistent, it, again, just seems bizarre to others even if it makes perfect sense.

So it doesn't fall apart, you just don't agree with the outcomes it produces. If some innocent child was turned into plane destroying WMD by some Evil powers and you kill the child to stop it, that's an Evil action. Murdering innocents is always Evil, even if under your view it was the "least bad thing." Being Good all the time is hard, and being Good requires that you find an alternative that isn't Evil at all. It means that you don't toss away your allegiance to being Good as soon as it becomes inconvenient for you. There is no compromising, Evil is Evil and must be avoided at all costs.

If you kill the child, you kill an innocent. If you don't kill the child, you allow (how many?) innocents to die through inaction.

We've seen that very scenario, with an absolute of "allow through inaction = evil" included, put forward.

And sometimes, there's no way way. "There's always another way" is a platitude, a trite fictional conceit that doesn't survive without the author's protection. Sometimes, there is no alternative, at all. It's not "compromise", it's how real situations actually work out sometimes.

Max is right this far: If Writer Will fiats a system where "lying is evil" (but otherwise looks like D&D's alignment grid), and then pulls an Anne Frank scenario where the NG cleric in whose attic she's hiding is flat-out asked, yes-or-no, if Anne is hiding in his attic, he's evil for exposing her and he's evil for lying. This is a degenerate "objective" morality system.

Zanos is right to point out that just because Will can write this degenerate fiat system doesn't mean that all fiat systems are inherently degenerate. Heck, D&D's handles it as Zanos points out: lying is chaotic, not evil.

"Yes, but you'll never get to her" followed by violence is still a valid response under such a system in this scenario. Heroes taking a non-obvious and potentially personally dangerous option to get out of nasty scenarios is a pretty well established storytelling trope. You could write a code or contrive a scenario where no option is the "right" option, but it would take some doing, and I think you would have to be doing it intentionally.

And then the priest dies, and the family he's hiding dies anyway, but hey, the priest is still "good" because he didn't hit any of the "evil checkboxes", and he can die with his conscience satisfied, I guess.

[Segev]

Like I said, "Lying is always evil" does lead to a degenerate "objective" morality. Which is why it is identifiably bad as a rule for such.

[Knaight]

"Yes, but you'll never get to her" followed by violence is still a valid response under such a system in this scenario. Heroes taking a non-obvious and potentially personally dangerous option to get out of nasty scenarios is a pretty well established storytelling trope. You could write a code or contrive a scenario where no option is the "right" option, but it would take some doing, and I think you would have to be doing it intentionally.

This isn't taking a non-obvious and personally dangerous option. This is taking a stupid option that puts the person under protection at unnecessary risk for basically no reason, and while the whole scenario doesn't say much about objective systems in general it does say a lot about poorly constructed deontological systems with garbage rules like "never lie" in them.

[Satinavian]

What if the paladin is a member of the order that is the highest court?

Then it was the paladin or his predecessor itself who ruled that the Lich can be king.
He might be able to rule against the king if the king does some new crime but he is already part of the system that gives the Lich-King legitimacy.

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.

Sure, with the way alignment works in D&D you can be an outlaw and a terrorist and still be considered lawful if you have some kind of code.
But the problem is that the rulership of the Lich is not bad. Deposing the Lich-Kind does not help anyone and is certainly not a good deed. Even the (sometimes overstretched) "greater good" does not count as a reason for the paladin to engage in terrorism and regicide. That leaves basically only vanity and pride.

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.

Again, premise of the thread : Lich king is legitimate ruler. So emporer Edward doesn't have a reasonable claim and even Paul knows that. So it is just a normal invasion under a pretext.


Cases where the Lich is not legitimate ruler is not what we consider here.

[Zanos]

If you kill the child, you kill an innocent. If you don't kill the child, you allow (how many?) innocents to die through inaction.

A code holding someone responsible for allowing something to happen through inaction is essentially impossible to maintain to begin with, but sure.

And sometimes, there's no way way. "There's always another way" is a platitude, a trite fictional conceit that doesn't survive without the author's protection.

A situation has to be contrived for there to only ever be one solution. It might not be the most effective or practical approach, but there's usually other options. Most moral codes do not require success or even efficiency in order to be maintained. If your code says that you can't allow innocents to die through inaction, expect a lot of martyrs and a lot of failure.

And then the priest dies, and the family he's hiding dies anyway, but hey, the priest is still "good" because he didn't hit any of the "evil checkboxes", and he can die with his conscience satisfied, I guess.

Now you're getting it! But the cleric and probably the family also get to go to their preferred eternal afterlife where they're happy forever, because gods and deities and heaven are all real things you can pay a wizard or priest to plane shift you to if you don't believe that it's true.

This isn't taking a non-obvious and personally dangerous option. This is taking a stupid option that puts the person under protection at unnecessary risk for basically no reason, and while the whole scenario doesn't say much about objective systems in general it does say a lot about poorly constructed deontological systems with garbage rules like "never lie" in them.

If the cleric's deity thought that the lives of innocents were more important than his followers lying or not lying, he could have easily said that. But it's not exactly like D&D deities are exactly rational, try explaining to a deity literally made of the concepts of Law and Honor and Good that you totally needed to lie. And there isn't "no reason." To a cleric, dogma is important. You only think it's a stupid reason because you don't agree with it.

[Segev]

Okay, if we're going with "by premise, the paladin agrees the lich is the legitimate ruler," then that does take the question of legitimacy off the table. You're right, that is implied by the title saying the lich is the legitimate ruler. Questioning by whose standards is violating the premise. So we will agree that the paladin shares those standards.

[Knaight]

If the cleric's deity thought that the lives of innocents were more important than his followers lying or not lying, he could have easily said that. But it's not exactly like D&D deities are exactly rational, try explaining to a deity literally made of the concepts of Law and Honor and Good that you totally needed to lie. And there isn't "no reason." To a cleric, dogma is important. You only think it's a stupid reason because you don't agree with it.

That's absolutely true - if I valued not lying over not actively helping murderers find their victims, I'd probably feel differently. As is, I'm more than willing to use putting forth this code as evidence that the deity in question isn't actually good.

[Zanos]

That's absolutely true - if I valued not lying over not actively helping murderers find their victims, I'd probably feel differently. As is, I'm more than willing to use putting forth this code as evidence that the deity in question isn't actually good.

It's not valuing not lying over innocents dying, it's valuing them the same, which is why you're obligated to both not lie and try to stop the murders, even if you fail. Although of course not saying anything at all isn't technically lying...

[Knaight]

It's not valuing not lying over innocents dying, it's valuing them the same, which is why you're obligated to both not lie and try to stop the murders, even if you fail. Although of course not saying anything at all isn't technically lying...

It's not just innocents dying, it's innocents dying when you could easily prevent it by lying to the shock troops of a brutal dictatorship. On top of that, valuing them the same isn't much better.

[Grim Portent]

It's also entirely possible to consider lying to be evil on the same scale as letting people be found by their potential murderers and lie anyway, you'd just consider it to be a moral failing on your part and feel bad until your guilt was assuaged by your priest or some sort of penance, same as you'd feel/do if you chose not to lie and let the family get killed.

[Zanos]

It's not just innocents dying, it's innocents dying when you could easily prevent it by lying to the shock troops of a brutal dictatorship. On top of that, valuing them the same isn't much better.

Sure? I mean, that's not my own morality and I wouldn't want someone to practice that sort of thing in the real world, but it's only a broken code when you strip out that deities are real and Evil/Good/Chaos/Law are physical forces and not just philosophical concepts.

[Max_Killjoy]

A code holding someone responsible for allowing something to happen through inaction is essentially impossible to maintain to begin with, but sure.

I thought it would have been clear, but that's not "anything in all of existence you don't try to stop is your moral failing", it's "you had the opportunity right in front of you and did nothing".

(Although... there are some out there who believe that you either spend every available moment helping others, or you admit that you don't care at all and it doesn't matter one bit, or you're a hypocrite. I am not one of those people, however.)

A situation has to be contrived for there to only ever be one solution. It might not be the most effective or practical approach, but there's usually other options. Most moral codes do not require success or even efficiency in order to be maintained. If your code says that you can't allow innocents to die through inaction, expect a lot of martyrs and a lot of failure.

No one said anything about there being only one option -- where did you get that?

Everyday real life is full of situations in which there are only bad options, including "doing nothing" having bad outcomes, and one is left to choose the least-bad option. So unless the real world is "contrived", you're going to have a hard time proving that all fictional "least bad option" situations are contrived.

Now you're getting it! But the cleric and probably the family also get to go to their preferred eternal afterlife where they're happy forever, because gods and deities and heaven are all real things you can pay a wizard or priest to plane shift you to if you don't believe that it's true.

So an eternity of doing good doesn't make up for a single "unspeakably evil" act... but an eternity of blissful afterlife does make up for being brutally murdered? (Brutally murdered at the very least... in the spirit of "unspeakable", we'll leave almost bottomless possibilities of depravity and suffering as an exercise in opening up history's darker chapters.)

No... I don't think so.

It's not just innocents dying, it's innocents dying when you could easily prevent it by lying to the shock troops of a brutal dictatorship. On top of that, valuing them the same isn't much better.

Sure? I mean, that's not my own morality and I wouldn't want someone to practice that sort of thing in the real world, but it's only a broken code when you strip out that deities are real and Evil/Good/Chaos/Law are physical forces and not just philosophical concepts.

None of those things make any difference in the matter.

[Keltest]

It's not just innocents dying, it's innocents dying when you could easily prevent it by lying to the shock troops of a brutal dictatorship. On top of that, valuing them the same isn't much better.

I guess, if theyre awful wussy shock troops who politely ask the wanted individuals to please come out of wherever theyre hiding instead of behaving like an actual brutal shock trooper of an all-powerful dictatorship.

The entire scenario is based on something highly implausible to begin with.

[Segev]

I guess, if theyre awful wussy shock troops who politely ask the wanted individuals to please come out of wherever theyre hiding instead of behaving like an actual brutal shock trooper of an all-powerful dictatorship.

The entire scenario is based on something highly implausible to begin with.

The actual Anne Frank story featured several times when the troops in question took the homeowner's word for it that he wasn't harboring any Jews. There's a simple fact that forcibly searching every house is impractical, and brutally attacking people to do so when they could be telling the truth even more so. Forcible searches wait until you have reason to suspect THIS house is one that DOES have what you're looking for, despite the owner's protestations to the contrary.

[Max_Killjoy]

I guess, if theyre awful wussy shock troops who politely ask the wanted individuals to please come out of wherever theyre hiding instead of behaving like an actual brutal shock trooper of an all-powerful dictatorship.

The entire scenario is based on something highly implausible to begin with.

What if the dictatorship is still maintaining a facade of respecting religion?
Or if the priest is part of an otherwise cooperative religious order?

[Zanos]

So an eternity of doing good doesn't make up for a single "unspeakably evil" act...

I never made any such claim, and "unspeakably Evil" acts are a narrative cheat anyway. Redemption does exist in D&D, even for the most Evil of people. The only exceptions I believe are certain outsiders, being physically made of Evil.

but an eternity of blissful afterlife does make up for being brutally murdered?

"Being murdered" isn't an activity that has anything to do with the alignment scale. We aren't paying off any sort of moral debt here.

No... I don't think so.

You're free to view the moral system as not being in-line with real world moral systems and criticize it as such, but criticizing it as not being internally consistent or logical is just wrong.

[Mordar]

Okay, if we're going with "by premise, the paladin agrees the lich is the legitimate ruler," then that does take the question of legitimacy off the table. You're right, that is implied by the title saying the lich is the legitimate ruler. Questioning by whose standards is violating the premise. So we will agree that the paladin shares those standards.

But I don't think the only question the paladin would be concerned with is the legitimacy of the lich ruling the kingdom. The paladin wouldn't have any issue offing the legitimate ruler of the clan of orcs that keep raiding the farmsteads in disputed lands in the Kingdom of the North. Or killing the general of an army at war with his country's army.

The legitimacy of the lich's rule may be based on a rule that says "Whomever should kill the sitting ruler becomes the new ruler" ala Kull...and it may be a purely democratic process by which he was crowned by the masses, or somewhere in between. This is kind of the crux of my point about multiple and potentially conflicting sources of authority.

This is where I think we need more information about the Paladin's god/order...because the answers might be very different if it is a Divinity of Justice versus a Divinity of War versus a Divinity of Boy-I-Hate-Undead-Because-They-Are-A-Crime-Against-The-Natural-Order.

I believe accepting the lich is a legitimate ruler who appears to be doing at least as well as average for the kingdom's residents is an important premise. But it is only the beginning of the conversation. I clearly believe the "it takes such an evil act(s) to become a lich that the lich must be evil...at least to start" is another important premise.

- M

[Max_Killjoy]

I never made any such claim,

Multiple others who've otherwise made the same arguments you're making, have. In this thread, in some cases.

"Making up for ________" is a the common ground between the two situations.

"Being murdered" isn't an activity that has anything to do with the alignment scale. We aren't paying off any sort of moral debt here.

Evidently the deities in question, or "the cosmic forces of the universe", are -- as you said, in response to the cleric and the family all dying because the cleric decided to fight it out rather than lie or turn them in, which has the same effect as turning them in: "But the cleric and probably the family also get to go to their preferred eternal afterlife where they're happy forever, because gods and deities and heaven are all real things"

You're free to view the moral system as not being in-line with real world moral systems and criticize it as such, but criticizing it as not being internally consistent or logical is just wrong.

I'm free to view it for what it is.

[Zanos]

Multiple others who've otherwise made the same arguments you're making, have. In this thread, in some cases.

I'll be sure to bring that up at the weekly meeting of people with similar but not quite identical opinions.

Evidently the deities in question, or "the cosmic forces of the universe", are -- as you said, in response to the cleric and the family all dying because the cleric decided to fight it out rather than lie or turn them in, which has the same effect as turning them in: "But the cleric and probably the family also get to go to their preferred eternal afterlife where they're happy forever, because gods and deities and heaven are all real things"

That's not paying off the debt of them being murdered, that's just what happens when you die assuming you followed your deities dogma correctly. It's not "oh **** you got murdered lol my bad let me hook you up with some sweet heaven" it's "oh you got murdered my ledger here says you're good so go on in." Getting murdered isn't relevant to whether or not you get let into your afterlife. Unless there's some wacky prohibition on getting murdered, which would be weird but not impossible. I'm pointing out that death isn't really as big of a deal in D&D land where deities and heaven provably exist, so living in accordance with your dogma is far more important than pretty much anything else.

[ross]

Thought of something -- does this mean that anyone who aligned or attuned sufficiently would just wake up one morning with paladin of _____ abilities?

Yes. Paladins are essentially the Saitamas of d&d.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not paying off the debt of them being murdered, that's just what happens when you die assuming you followed your deities dogma correctly. It's not "oh **** you got murdered lol my bad let me hook you up with some sweet heaven" it's "oh you got murdered my ledger here says you're good so go on in." Getting murdered isn't relevant to whether or not you get let into your afterlife. Unless there's some wacky prohibition on getting murdered, which would be weird but not impossible. I'm pointing out that death isn't really as big of a deal in D&D land where deities and heaven provably exist, so living in accordance with your dogma is far more important than pretty much anything else.

So does all that afterlife crap make up for them being brutally murdered (and all the other suffering), or not?


Because in the context of the following exchange, it certainly appears to be offered up as some sort of consolation for all that suffering:

Max is right this far: If Writer Will fiats a system where "lying is evil" (but otherwise looks like D&D's alignment grid), and then pulls an Anne Frank scenario where the NG cleric in whose attic she's hiding is flat-out asked, yes-or-no, if Anne is hiding in his attic, he's evil for exposing her and he's evil for lying. This is a degenerate "objective" morality system.

Zanos is right to point out that just because Will can write this degenerate fiat system doesn't mean that all fiat systems are inherently degenerate. Heck, D&D's handles it as Zanos points out: lying is chaotic, not evil.

"Yes, but you'll never get to her" followed by violence is still a valid response under such a system in this scenario. Heroes taking a non-obvious and potentially personally dangerous option to get out of nasty scenarios is a pretty well established storytelling trope. You could write a code or contrive a scenario where no option is the "right" option, but it would take some doing, and I think you would have to be doing it intentionally.

And then the priest dies, and the family he's hiding dies anyway, but hey, the priest is still "good" because he didn't hit any of the "evil checkboxes", and he can die with his conscience satisfied, I guess.

Now you're getting it! But the cleric and probably the family also get to go to their preferred eternal afterlife where they're happy forever, because gods and deities and heaven are all real things you can pay a wizard or priest to plane shift you to if you don't believe that it's true.

Emphasis added.

[Keltest]

So does all that afterlife crap make up for them being brutally murdered (and all the other suffering), or not?

Its not meant to "make up" for anything, but people are going to be more willing to risk death if they believe that they have a good afterlife awaiting them.

[Max_Killjoy]

Its not meant to "make up" for anything, but people are going to be more willing to risk death if they believe that they have a good afterlife awaiting them.

In the situation in question, the priest who decides "Don't lie, don't give up the innocents, attack instead!" isn't just choosing to risk his own death, he's risking the death of those he's hiding too.

But hey, let them all die, the gods will know their own, I guess.

[Steampunkette]

Evil is both what you do and, more importantly, why you do it.

A NE scribe who works for the king and dutifully follows all the laws can still be a petty jerk who delights in tying people up in bureaucracy without wanting to kill the king and rule. He's still an evil little curious who probably deserves a smiting, but so long as he causes no real problem no paladin will hunt him down.

If the Lich is a Just ruler who delights in handing out harsh punishments and lord ing his wealth over people he can still be a thing of evil without being a malevolent entity destroying the world with an army of the dead.

Evil isn't always a threat. Sometimes it's just petty and spiteful.

The ultimate question lies in what good comes of his destruction, and what evil. If you kill him, you'll be executed for regicide, which is a wash. But who takes power? Who gets hurt in the interim? Does the warmongering general take power and use an army to squash a peaceful kingdom?

Morality is more complex than two letters on a character sheet.

[Keltest]

In the situation in question, the priest who decides "Don't lie, don't give up the innocents, attack instead!" isn't just choosing to risk his own death, he's risking the death of those he's hiding too.

But hey, let them all die, the gods will know their own, I guess.

That's true regardless of what he chooses to do though.

[Satinavian]

But I don't think the only question the paladin would be concerned with is the legitimacy of the lich ruling the kingdom. The paladin wouldn't have any issue offing the legitimate ruler of the clan of orcs that keep raiding the farmsteads in disputed lands in the Kingdom of the North. Or killing the general of an army at war with his country's army.

The legitimacy of the lich's rule may be based on a rule that says "Whomever should kill the sitting ruler becomes the new ruler" ala Kull...and it may be a purely democratic process by which he was crowned by the masses, or somewhere in between. This is kind of the crux of my point about multiple and potentially conflicting sources of authority.

This is where I think we need more information about the Paladin's god/order...because the answers might be very different if it is a Divinity of Justice versus a Divinity of War versus a Divinity of Boy-I-Hate-Undead-Because-They-Are-A-Crime-Against-The-Natural-Order.

I believe accepting the lich is a legitimate ruler who appears to be doing at least as well as average for the kingdom's residents is an important premise. But it is only the beginning of the conversation. I clearly believe the "it takes such an evil act(s) to become a lich that the lich must be evil...at least to start" is another important premise.

- M

Exactly. So let's reiterate :

- The Lich ruler is legitimate
- He is a fair (enough) ruler
- He has done something extremely evil in the past

So the problem revolves around the following : Without the act of unspeakable evil the paladin had no reason to off the ruler. Offing the ruler does not prevent any harm as the rulership is comparably fair, to the conrtrary it is more likely to cause harm as many rulers are not considered fair (enough) and instability is always bad. Murdering a ruler for pinging Evil is wrong, actually an evil act in itself.

Does the Evil act of the ruler in the past change all that ? Is a paladin supposed instead of protecting the innocent and fighting those who threaten them to dig around in the past of people who don't do evil and punish them for old, forgotten, buried trangressions ? And all that without even having the lawful mandate to do so nor victoms who seek justice ?


I don't think the past deeds of the Lich change anything and killing him without any better justification would still be murder and thus an evil act.