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

[GPS]

in 5e I think they do need to consume souls periodically.

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm a 5e guy, and I often forget I'm not on the 5e exclusive channel.

[Unoriginal]

They do not, per the rules, have to consume souls. In fact, liches are the ultimate in self-sufficient, leave-me-alone-I'm-studying undead, if they want to be. They really can lock themselves away in a tower or dungeon miles from anyone and not come out for decades while they spend every moment researching and experimenting with their magical powers.

In 3.X, yes.

[JNAProductions]

Anyone here read Dresden Files?

Gentleman Johnny Marcone.

[Enixon]

I kinda imagine the scenario would play out a bit like the ongoing conflicts between Superman and Lex Luthor. Superman can't just go in and clobber the CEO of a major corporation even though he knows Lex is an evil psychopath nor can he go and smash up everything with a Lexcorp logo plastered on it since that would end up causing more hardship for all the innocent people that would be affected. That said what he CAN do, is find out about whatever particularly evil plots Lex is doing in addition to running his corporation and put a stop to /those/.




Now the more jaded part of me can't help but assume that the whole point of even having the Lich ruling legitimately and not being a cliche "evil overlord" type is so the DM can go "gotcha!" and make the paladin fall whether he tries to destroy the lich* or lets it continue on existing**


*GOTCHA! You just threw a peaceful nation into a chaos you now Chaotic Evil religious bigot!


**GOTCHA! You're allowing a soulless monstrosity to continue his evil ways because of legal loopholes you now Lawful Neutral bureaucratic drone!

[Max_Killjoy]

By the rules we have from the lich entry in the MM, becoming one requires an act of "unspeakable evil." Though this act is unspecified, something about making the phylactery and becoming a lich, something in the process somewhere, is an act so horrifically evil that anybody who knows of it is (at least metaphorically) unable to speak of it for how monstrous it is. It is something that willfully doing it is unquestionably evil by nearly any standard, and thus no matter how good you are otherwise, your willingness to engage in this is soul-staining.

Rowling goes down the same road with "wicked immortality" and "an unspeakably evil act", and it gets tedious.

Somehow, I'm not impressed by being told that an act is so evil that you can't tell us what it is. Between reality and imagination, the whole notion rings hollow.

[Beleriphon]

Anyone here read Dresden Files?

Gentleman Johnny Marcone.

He's not an undead abomination of nature though, in fact he's not even that bad from a D&D perspective. He's ruthless and amoral, but he's not evil in the D&D sense of things. What's being asked is more akin of what the a country would be like if ruled by Kessler, or a Denarian.

[JNAProductions]

The only difference presented here is that Marcone is alive and the lich is undead. I'm of the camp that being undead =/= being evil, necessarily.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Rowling goes down the same road with "wicked immortality" and "an unspeakably evil act", and it gets tedious.

Somehow, I'm not impressed by being told that an act is so evil that you can't tell us what it is. Between reality and imagination, the whole notion rings hollow.

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

I don't see what filling in the blanks there would add. What that does is leave it up to the individual game world just what that unspeakably evil act is.

[Segev]

Rowling goes down the same road with "wicked immortality" and "an unspeakably evil act", and it gets tedious.

Somehow, I'm not impressed by being told that an act is so evil that you can't tell us what it is. Between reality and imagination, the whole notion rings hollow.

I'm actually okay with it. Particularly in D&D, where it's left unnamed specifically so that the players and DMs of a particular game can make it up if they want, without having a "canon" one that somehow offends or underwhelms somebody one way or another.

• "What? That's not evil; that just shows how bigoted the writers are that they think so!"
• "AAAAAH! What sicko THINKs of this stuff?! How can they print that in a book without huge warning labels!? D&D is for kids too, you know!"
• "...okay, yeah, that's...certainly evil, but it's hardly unforgivable. I could probably orchestrate a way to make that non-evil and still get a lich out of it."
• "Oh, great, more 'informed evil.' Like animating the dead."

If, at your table, an act of incestuous rape and murder is what is required, and you all agree that that is sufficiently evil and not doable without being evil, that works for your table. If your table thinks that's some relatively mundane evil, there, then you can come up with something else. If your table doesn't want to contemplate such things, you can come up with something else.

Same goes for if it takes the betrayal of a close friend, murder and soul-trapping of a random schmoe, murdering your adulterous wife and her lover instead of finishing your quest for redemption, exterminating an endangered species, or putting chili on a hot dog (you monster).

It is unfortunate for those who can't come up with something they deem "sufficiently evil," though.



I've heard that J.K. Rowling actually did write out, in detail, the procedure for creating a horcrux. Her editors were so horrified that they forbade her to publish it. Whether this is apocryphal, or her editors had a weak stomach compared to her fans, or she really did come up with something That Awful, is unknown to me. I like the notion that it's the last, though, so I choose to believe it until I get evidence to the contrary.

As it is, at the least, we know that each horcrux requires the murder of another human being.

[Frozen_Feet]

Rowling goes down the same road with "wicked immortality" and "an unspeakably evil act", and it gets tedious.

Somehow, I'm not impressed by being told that an act is so evil that you can't tell us what it is. Between reality and imagination, the whole notion rings hollow.

Uh, with Rowling, we know exactly what the required evil act is: murder. In the Potter setting, killing another human in cold blood is so traumatizing it literally splinters your soul.

You then place that splinter of your soul inside some object. The exact spell or ritual is unknown (because those in the know didn't want to give people funny ideas), but those details are not necessary for understanding what is wickes about it.

(A variant form of "wicked immortality", or rather, "wicked emotional invulnerability" is seen in Warlock's Hairy Heart in Tales of Beedle the Bard. Hint: removing your heart so that you can avert love and other such "foolishness" may not be the best way to achieve respect and a fulfilling life.)

[icefractal]

in 5e I think they do need to consume souls periodically.

Needing a steady diet of souls means the Lich is almost certainly evil, but it could still be ruling the kingdom in a non-evil way. There’s the entire rest of the world out there, and many Liches can teleport - no need to harvest souls from one’s own kingdom.

[Unoriginal]

5e goes more detailed about what's so evil about being a Lich.

Needing a steady diet of souls means the Lich is almost certainly evil, but it could still be ruling the kingdom in a non-evil way. There’s the entire rest of the world out there, and many Liches can teleport - no need to harvest souls from one’s own kingdom.

And? An evil ruler is still something that Paladins would be against, even if they're evil outside of their borders.

Hell, it makes it MORE likely for the Paladins to want to intervene.

[Max_Killjoy]

Uh, with Rowling, we know exactly what the required evil act is: murder. In the Potter setting, killing another human in cold blood is so traumatizing it literally splinters your soul.

You then place that splinter of your soul inside some object. The exact spell or ritual is unknown (because those in the know didn't want to give people funny ideas), but those details are not necessary for understanding what is wickes about it.

(A variant form of "wicked immortality", or rather, "wicked emotional invulnerability" is seen in Warlock's Hairy Heart in Tales of Beedle the Bard. Hint: removing your heart so that you can avert love and other such "foolishness" may not be the best way to achieve respect and a fulfilling life.)

From the Wikia:

J. K. Rowling knows exactly what the process for the creation of a Horcrux is, but is not telling — yet. All she will say is that a spell is involved, and a horrific act is performed.^[2] The information was initially planned to be revealed in the Harry Potter Encyclopedia. However, since the encyclopaedia may have been cancelled, the information may eventually be revealed on Pottermore.

From the footnoted source:

JKR: I see it as a series of things you would have to do. So you would have to perform a spell. But you would also-- I don't even know if I want to say it out loud, I know that sounds funny. But I did really think it through. There are two things that I think are too horrible, actually, to go into detail about. One of them is how Pettigrew brought Voldemort back into a rudimentary body. 'Cause I told my editor what I thought happened there, and she looked as though she was gonna vomit. And then-- and the other thing is, how you make a Horcrux. And I don't even like-- I don't know. Will it be in the Encyclopedia? I don't know if I can bring myself to, ummm... I don't know.

So... no, we don't know, and just "cold blooded murder" appear to very much not be enough.

(The part about "cold blooded murder" "splintering the soul" strikes me as very much the sort of thing that adults told Harry when they were telling him a sanitized, simplified version of the truth.)

[Unoriginal]

So... no, we don't know, and just "cold blooded murder" appear to very much not be enough.

(The part about "cold blooded murder" "splintering the soul" strikes me as very much the sort of thing that adults told Harry when they were telling him a sanitized, simplified version of the truth.)

No, it was Slughorn telling this to Tom Riddle.

The shattering of the soul when you kill is literal. It's just that it is not enough to imprison the soul fragment in an item.

What you have to do starts with murder, and then there is a whole process to capture your fractured soul

[Max_Killjoy]

No, it was Slughorn telling this to Tom Riddle.

The shattering of the soul when you kill is literal. It's just that it is not enough to imprison the soul fragment in an item.

What you have to do starts with murder, and then there is a whole process to capture your fractured soul

Given JKR's own words... no.

[Keltest]

Given JKR's own words... no.

No... what? murder doesn't shatter your soul? I see nothing in there to contradict the idea.

[hamishspence]

It may be more "murder cracks the soul, but doesn't break a bit off it - the Horcrux-making spell breaks a bit of the soul off along the crack"

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Horcrux

To create a Horcrux, a wizard first had to deliberately commit murder. This act, said to be one of supreme evil, would result in the murderer metaphysically damaging their own soul. A wizard who wished to create a Horcrux would then use that damage to their advantage by casting a spell which would rip the damaged portion of the soul off of the whole and encase it in an object.

That's why an ordinary murderer, no matter how many murders they've committed, still has a complete soul - and looks normal.

Whereas Voldemort, having broken bits off his soul many times, looks less and less human with every Horcrux he makes, until he's downright snakelike in facial appearance.


It would also fit with the notion that Voldemort can make the Horcrux quite some time after the relevant murder was committed - for both the Diary and the Ring:

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Tom_Riddle%27s_Diary

When Tom Marvolo Riddle was in his fifth year at Hogwarts, he achieved his goal of locating Salazar Slytherin's Chamber of Secrets and used his ability to speak Parseltongue to open it. He further used this language ability to order the Chamber's Basilisk to terrorise the school and hunt down the Muggle-born students. Eventually one, a Ravenclaw girl named Myrtle Warren, was killed. Riddle would later use this murder to infuse the journal with a piece of his soul, and transformed it into his first Horcrux.

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Marvolo_Gaunt's_Ring

Upon learning of his father's abandonment (and thus feeling that he had caused Merope's death), Riddle stunned Morfin and took his wand. He then proceeded to the Riddle House to confront his father. Frank Bryce, the Riddle's gardener, remarked later that he had seen Riddle ascending the hill toward the house. Riddle used a common spell to unlock the door and entered the house. Once inside, Riddle found his father, as well as his grandparents, Thomas Riddle and Mary Riddle, in the drawing room. Riddle then used the Killing Curse on his father and Muggle grandparents.

It is unknown if there were any words exchanged between them before the actual murders took place, but what is certain is that the Riddles were found dead in their drawing room, with looks of extreme fear on their faces. Riddle returned to the Gaunt shack and modified Morfin's memory to make him believe that he had killed the Riddles himself. Riddle replaced Morfin's wand on his person but absconded with the ring. When Morfin was arrested by the Ministry and found guilty of the Riddle murders, he was carted off to Azkaban for good this time. As he was being taken away, he continuously remarked that his father would kill him for losing the ring.

Riddle openly wore the ring at Hogwarts after these events, as seen on his hand in a memory provided by Potions Master Horace Slughorn. Riddle then questioned Slughorn about Horcruxes, particularly what would happen to the wizard that created more than one. By this point, Riddle had already created his first Horcrux, his childhood diary, with the murder of a fellow student named Myrtle. At some point shortly before or after his graduation from Hogwarts, Riddle used the murder of his father, Tom Riddle Snr to turn the ring into a Horcrux.

[GPS]

The only difference presented here is that Marcone is alive and the lich is undead. I'm of the camp that being undead =/= being evil, necessarily.

Does undead not mean inherently evil in 3.X? 90% of undead in 5e are inherently evil just by MM

[Max_Killjoy]

No... what? murder doesn't shatter your soul? I see nothing in there to contradict the idea.

JKR makes an emphatic point of how it's too terrible to detail even outside the books, and comparable to something that made her editor almost vomit just from the description. It starts with a spell, but both the spell details and the rest of the process, she's unwilling to describe.

An estimated 1200 people are murdered every day worldwide... somehow I doubt that "just" murder is a key part of a process that JKR can't even hint at and revolting on the level that mere description could threaten to make someone vomit. If it's simple murdering someone and casting the right spell, what is so disgusting and what is she so reluctant to even hint at?

Rather, the assertion that "murder" "splinters the soul" appears to be Slughorn not knowing the details and throwing in a bit of poetic puffery.


As this relates to the process by which one attains and maintains lichdom... what exactly is so evil that it cannot be spoken of? While the rules of the forum prevent it here, there's very little evil that can't at least be spoken of, even if the repulsive details would best be left unsaid.

[JNAProductions]

Does undead not mean inherently evil in 3.X? 90% of undead in 5e are inherently evil just by MM

Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces.

Features
An undead creature has the following features.

12-sided Hit Dice.
Base attack bonus equal to ½ total Hit Dice (as wizard).
Good Will saves.
Skill points equal to (4 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die, if the undead creature has an Intelligence score. However, many undead are mindless and gain no skill points or feats.
Traits
An undead creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

No Constitution score.
Darkvision out to 60 feet.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects.
Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects.
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).
Uses its Charisma modifier for Concentration checks.
Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed.
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
Proficient with its natural weapons, all simple weapons, and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Undead not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Undead are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.

Those are the undead traits from the SRD. Nothing in there screams "Evil" to me.

[Unoriginal]

3.X allows non-evil Undead. 5e changed that.

[Vitruviansquid]

Wat?

Evil creatures can do non-evil things just fine. They can even be totally nice and altruistic ... to some people. For example, if a giant acts in a LG-like manner toward other giants, but considers "small folk" to not matter at all and kills them for entertainment, you'd still call that character evil.

So there are a lot of ways that an evil Lich could be ruling a kingdom in a non-evil way. Just for example:
* It's the kingdom where he grew up, he actually likes the people there. The rest of the world ... eh, that can all burn if it benefits him to do so.
* He's taking a century or two off to do magical research - this kingdom has an excellent set of libraries. He figures that he's less likely to have interruptions from rebellions if he rules fairly.
* It's a scheme to become thought of as a respectable monarch, so he can get private audiences with other monarchs and mind control them.

And that's even ignoring reasons that might eventually cause the Lich to drift to neutral, but haven't yet. Like legitimately just wanting to do a good job running a kingdom, as like, a hobby.

I'm going to quote this to address all posts of the stripe.

I think the alignment system is best used as a portayal of the black and white morality that fits into the genre of D&D, which we can say imitates the nature of morality in Lord of the Rings, or a fairy tale, or a (stereotypical) medieval worldview. In Lord of the Rings, we don't question whether the balrog does anything good. He's evil. We don't question whether extermination of all orcs is good. We are told they are evil and that's enough. Similarly, we don't really question whether Cinderella's evil stepmother really deserved what came her way because maybe she was just mean to Cinderella and nice to everyone else. The way that these genre conceive morality permits no other way to look at it.

You run into problems applying modern morality to a system that was designed, intentionally or not, to force you into a different view of morality. The idea that people are not inherently good or evil, but that the sum of their deeds, which can be a bit of both, add up to our ability to broadly categorize someone as one or the other while knowingly understanding it is shorthand to do so is unsupported in this system. An analogy is imagine if you tried to play the White Wolf monster games with someone who so firmly believed in mind over matter that they didn't believe in things like mental illness and addiction. Their understanding of behavior would be incompatible wih the game's prescriptions for how to behave.

[hamishspence]

3.X allows non-evil Undead. 5e changed that.

5e Ghosts can still be of any alignment:

http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ghost.htm

Regarding individual alignment entries - isn't it merely the default alignment? Creatures like deep gnomes, centaurs, etc are listed as Neutral Good - but, not being Outsiders, they are capable of changing alignment.

The same may apply to those intelligent undead listed as Evil.

[Keltest]

JKR makes an emphatic point of how it's too terrible to detail even outside the books, and comparable to something that made her editor almost vomit just from the description. It starts with a spell, but both the spell details and the rest of the process, she's unwilling to describe.

An estimated 1200 people are murdered every day worldwide... somehow I doubt that "just" murder is a key part of a process that JKR can't even hint at and revolting on the level that mere description could threaten to make someone vomit. If it's simple murdering someone and casting the right spell, what is so disgusting and what is she so reluctant to even hint at?

Rather, the assertion that "murder" "splinters the soul" appears to be Slughorn not knowing the details and throwing in a bit of poetic puffery.


As this relates to the process by which one attains and maintains lichdom... what exactly is so evil that it cannot be spoken of? While the rules of the forum prevent it here, there's very little evil that can't at least be spoken of, even if the repulsive details would best be left unsaid.

Its the first step. A murder will fragment your soul, and a followup process that ultimately was not deemed fit for description is used to remove that part of your soul and stash it in an object.

Anyway, I hope you don't want a literal answer to the question "what is so evil you cant speak of it" because the answer, by definition, cant be communicated.

[hamishspence]

Its the first step. A murder will fragment your soul, and a followup process that ultimately was not deemed fit for description is used to remove that part of your soul and stash it in an object.

I prefer "crack" to fragment - because a fragmented object is generally not together any more, but in separate bits - whereas a cracked object can still be all one piece.

I think the alignment system is best used as a portayal of the black and white morality that fits into the genre of D&D, which we can say imitates the nature of morality in Lord of the Rings, or a fairy tale, or a (stereotypical) medieval worldview.

The Giant on this subject

Another Poster:
D&D is a world of black and white morality, in most cases. Even the concept of shades of grey was codified in neutrality, really an idea that's just as simple and straightforward (albeit annoyingly hard to actually implement) as good and evil. Trying to apply your real world morals to it (often resulting i the self-inflicted discomfort you're feeling) is like trying to determine the morality of a lion eating a gazelle; they're just not compatible.

The Giant's response:
The primary purpose of Redcloak's characterization is to specifically prove that this point is completely and utterly wrong. That D&D cannot and should not begin and end at black-and-white, and indeed already doesn't, if everyone would just learn to look at things a little more complexly.

[CharonsHelper]

You guys do realize that you're arguing about specifics in a fantasy world which has all sorts of gaping holes and failures of internal consistency.

Harry Potter is a lot of fun and JKR is a master of pacing and fun ideas - but a great world-builder she is NOT.

[Unoriginal]

I'm going to quote this to address all posts of the stripe.

I think the alignment system is best used as a portayal of the black and white morality that fits into the genre of D&D, which we can say imitates the nature of morality in Lord of the Rings, or a fairy tale, or a (stereotypical) medieval worldview. In Lord of the Rings, we don't question whether the balrog does anything good. He's evil. We don't question whether extermination of all orcs is good. We are told they are evil and that's enough. Similarly, we don't really question whether Cinderella's evil stepmother really deserved what came her way because maybe she was just mean to Cinderella and nice to everyone else. The way that these genre conceive morality permits no other way to look at it.

You run into problems applying modern morality to a system that was designed, intentionally or not, to force you into a different view of morality. The idea that people are not inherently good or evil, but that the sum of their deeds, which can be a bit of both, add up to our ability to broadly categorize someone as one or the other while knowingly understanding it is shorthand to do so is unsupported in this system. An analogy is imagine if you tried to play the White Wolf monster games with someone who so firmly believed in mind over matter that they didn't believe in things like mental illness and addiction. Their understanding of behavior would be incompatible wih the game's prescriptions for how to behave.

The alignment system describes *tendencies*. A Chaotic Evil person is a person who, most of the time, will choose to do Chaotic and Evil things.


Problem is, 3.X's writers really, really messed up how alignments were handled, especially in the books that were supposed to talk about alignments.

5e Ghosts can still be of any alignment:

http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ghost.htm

True, thank you, I've forgotten that.

Regarding individual alignment entries - isn't it merely the default alignment? Creatures like deep gnomes, centaurs, etc are listed as Neutral Good - but, not being Outsiders, they are capable of changing alignment.

The same may apply to those intelligent undead listed as Evil.

Nah, in 5e, the evil Undead are either evil spirits that desires to kill everything that is alive, or evil people who died and came back in a more powerful form.

You can't be a Lich without being evil, for exemple, because if you decided to stop being evil you'd end your horrible existence.


In 3.X, the intelligent Undead are basically just people animated by negative energy, and with a few particular needs.

[Beleriphon]

As this relates to the process by which one attains and maintains lichdom... what exactly is so evil that it cannot be spoken of? While the rules of the forum prevent it here, there's very little evil that can't at least be spoken of, even if the repulsive details would best be left unsaid.

I can think of several horrifying things that might qualify. I mean humans are pretty terrible to each other in general so its not like something horrific hasn't actually happened to a person before and details of it are available.

If you want to come up with something I suggest it starts with mass murder on a pretty grand scale. Like killing three or four villages of people all at the same time scale and just gets worse from there.

[veti]

This is why paladins are affiliated to orders, churches and the like. A decision like this should not be taken - cannot be taken - by any one person in isolation. At least, not if that person describes themself as any flavour of "lawful".

The paladin will follow the policy of their order towards the lich-king. If that policy is "work for good within the framework, don't make any overt moves against the regime", then that's what they'll do. If it's "seek out potential dissidents within the government to organise a coup and end the lich", then that's what they'll do. If it's "open warfare against the whole kingdom until the lich flees or dies", then... well, you get the picture.

If a paladin is trying to make that kind of call without referring to their superiors, who can be expected to know way more about the big socio-political picture than they do - then they may or may not be Good, but they're big-time failing Lawful.

[hamishspence]

Nah, in 5e, the evil Undead are either evil spirits that desires to kill everything that is alive, or evil people who died and came back in a more powerful form.

Does 5e not have room for the traditional "vampire antihero" then - who got free of the Vampire that spawned them - and sought to exist in a way that's somewhat less evil - using their bite only in combat against villains?