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

[The Aboleth]

SNIP "The Story of Bob, the Dark Lord Lich"

That's a great story! It actually inspired me to write a story of my own. I wondered: Could a person undergo the "unspeakably evil" process of becoming a lich for "good" reasons? Could a person who was, up to that point, seen as fair and just commit the act and still rule afterward in a fair and just manner? Can a single act make a good person bad--or are they a simply a good person who made a bad decision?

To answer these questions, I present to you "The Wizard-King of Sevillus" and invite you to give me your thoughts and feedback on the matter. Enjoy!

Spoiler: The Wizard-King of Sevillus

Show

The Wizard-King of Sevillus had ruled his nation for 72 years. Before he came to the throne, the kingdom was a chaotic and brutal country filled with constant violence both from within and without; upon the Wizard-King’s ascent to power, he was able to unite—through a combination of shrewd diplomacy, sage-like wisdom, and unmatched arcane power--the disparate factions and establish a peace and unity that was unheard of in Sevillus centuries-spanning history. The Wizard-King was adored by his people for his just, fair, and compassionate style of governance.

Though his mind was as sharp as ever, the Wizard-King’s body had begun to fail him. Both his own people and the enemy nations that surrounded Sevillus knew this, and all waited cautiously to learn who the Wizard-King would choose as his successor. Yet of all the people who worried about this fact, none were more conflicted than the Wizard-King himself.

The Wizard-King had two sons, and neither had lived up to his expectations. The oldest was a selfish and hedonistic soul—he wanted all the pleasures and benefits that his royal blood provided but cared nothing for the responsibilities that came with it. Were he to be crowned King, the eldest son would doubtless be content to watch the entire land fall back into chaos so long as he had his wine and women. The younger son, by contrast, cared nothing for the pleasures of life but was instead pragmatic to the point of lacking emotion—if confronted with a problem, he would always choose the most logical solution regardless of the emotional or moral consequences thereof. Were the younger son to be crowned King, he would likely abandon an entire province to an advancing demon horde without a second thought if it meant gaining even a slight tactical advantage later on.

For these reasons, the people of Sevillus were fearful of either son gaining the throne. The Wizard-King likewise felt strongly that neither of his sons were fit to rule. Who, then, could be trusted to take over from him once he shuffled off his mortal coil? He considered choosing a successor from his royal court, but again found himself lacking options. His High General, for example, possessed great skill in martial and military matters, but lacked the patience and nuance necessary to effectively govern in the political arena. His Court Wizard, similarly, possessed an almost unmatched level of intelligence in magical matters but was severely lost in any areas that didn’t relate to his chosen line of work. No matter where or how hard he looked, the Wizard-King could not find a single person who possessed the intelligence, wisdom, compassion, or level-headedness that he had felt was crucial to continuing the peace and prosperity he had worked so hard to achieve for over seven decades.

The problem weighed upon the Wizard-King’s heart and mind daily, and every hour that went by without a successor being named caused his people greater anxiety. Already there were rumors of old factions readying to ignite dormant blood-feuds as soon as the rule of law collapsed following the Wizard-King’s death. Additionally, spies reported that the neighboring kingdoms were secretly making battle plans to invade Sevillus at an opportune time—with the Wizard-King dead and the country in turmoil, they reasoned, nothing would be able to prevent them from swooping in and taking advantage of the situation at the expense of Sevillus’s people. The Wizard-King alone had forged stability from anarchy throughout his reign, and once he shuffled off the mortal coil everyone—even the Wizard-King himself—believed those terrible, bloody days would return.

The only option, then, was to NOT shuffle off the mortal coil—immortality would allow the Wizard-King to continue protecting his kingdom without the fear of death hanging over him like a black cloud. How, though, to achieve immortality? The Wizard-King locked himself inside his great library for days on end, eating little and sleeping less. He weighed the pros and cons of every option—Vampirism would give him everlasting life, but being restricted to the night would severely limit his ability to govern—until finally his mind wandered to the unthinkable: Becoming a Lich.

Certainly, there were some benefits to the process: He would be unbound by the bodily needs of sleep, hunger, or thirst which would allow him to devote more time to his kingdom, and he would be virtually immune to destruction—even if his body was destroyed by an assassin from another kingdom, for example, his form would regenerate within a short while so long as his phylactery was well-hidden. The resulting boost in arcane power and intelligence likewise appealed to the monarch, for such boons would increase his ability to lead his people in a fair and just manner.

However, the disadvantages were well and truly evil: The separation of one’s body and soul was not to be taken lightly, and the need to feed the phylactery with more souls every so often was an act so horrible the very thought of it filled the Wizard-King with dread. And the process itself of becoming a Lich…by the Gods, could he go through with it? Could he shoulder the guilt and remorse he would carry for all of eternity? And yet, the kingdom needed him….without his hand, thousands—perhaps even millions—of innocents would die in the chaos and bloodlust that would follow the expiration of his life.

His decision made, the King made the necessary preparations…and then called his sons into the grand library.

“What is it, father? Make this quick, I was in the middle of a hugely important matter concerning two very lovely women from the southwest province!” the eldest son snapped.

“Yes, father, I must agree that this unexpected summoning is an inefficient use of time. It would be best for everyone involved if we made this quick,” said the younger.

“My boys…” the Wizard-King began, and then choked back tears. Could they ever forgive him? Could he ever forgive himself?

“Ugh! Is this going to be another dreary conversation about the responsibilities of Kingship and the need to put the kingdom’s welfare above all? Spare me!” the first son commanded, and made to leave the library. When he made to open the door, however, he found it locked from the outside. “What is this?! Why won’t it open?!” he shouted, proceeding with futile attempts at banging the door down with his fists and feet.

The younger son did not say anything at first, instead choosing to take in his surroundings. The locked doors…the runes and symbols newly inscribed on the floor and walls…the sight of his father holding back tears. “I understand,” he said at last. “You mean to kill us.”

The older son stopped his attempts to open the door, and slowly turned to face his father with a profound look of fear on his face. “Kill us? But…why?!”

The Wizard-King could keep himself from sobbing, but could not hold back a silent stream of tears from flowing down his face. “I am sorry. I…it is my failure that you have not grown up to be what I had hoped. Perhaps if I had spent more time being a father instead of a king, things would be different. But…I can’t let the kingdom fall into chaos. Sevillus needs me. Sevillus needs me…to live.”

“I understand, Father,” said the youngest son. “It is the logical course of action.”

“Logical course of…are you mad?!” chastised the other brother. He ran to the door and returned to pounding on it, though this time with greater effort. “Help! Someone, please help us!” His pleas went unanswered.

“May the Gods forgive me,” The Wizard-King wept. He cast his spell, and the world went quiet save for the screams of the his children and the sound of his own sobbing.

The Wizard-King emerged from the library several hours later. His flesh was still mostly intact, but he knew in time that it would rot away—indeed, his right hand already showed subtle signs of decomposition. While his flesh would eventually cease to exist, the Wizard-King knew that his sorrow would not—whatever their faults, he loved his boys as only a father truly could. Their ultimate fate was a burden he would carry—indeed, had chosen to carry—for all eternity to ensure the safety and welfare of his Sevillus and its citizens. Time would tell if the Wizard-King had made the right decision…and time was now a resource he possessed in everlasting abundance.

Now, after the transformation into a Lich I imagine the Wizard-King would continue to rule in the fair and just manner he had before. Perhaps initially some of the people of Sevillus would be shocked and horrified at what the Wizard-King had done to his own sons, but I think over time they would forgive him after seeing his rule was as good and prosperus as ever. They may even grow to see the murder of his sons as an act of selfless sacrifice--a father cut down his own flesh-and-blood to ensure his subjects remained safe from the dangers of a chaotic and brutal world. After all, he must live with that guilt for eternity, and only it takes a special kind of man to willingly take on that suffering for the good of his people, right?

So, what do you all think? Is the Wizard-King an example of a "good" Lich, or is he misguided and selfish to the point of being "evil?" Or somewhere in-between?

EDIT: And also, how do you think a Paladin would/should react to this situation? Obviously not all Paladins are the same and they could have very different reactions depending on their Oaths/character designs. But how would a Paladin YOU play react to the Wizard-King of Sevillus?

[Keltest]

That may work in D&D, but in the real world, it really, really doesn't, which means that in a meta way, it doesn't really work in D&D.

It doesn't work in the real world because we don't have people who get super powers just by being good people. Or bad people, for that matter.

[Tiktakkat]

Now, after the transformation into a Lich I imagine the Wizard-King would continue to rule in the fair and just manner he had before.

You mean he would look at events, consider the various possibilities, then calmly murder anyone who might fall short of his standards of performance and concern for others, wailing and moaning every time he has to slaughter another person, family, village, or even province, because he so regrets having to take their lives "for the greater good".

By the by, he was king for 72 years and has 2 sons, but those sons have no children at all? That seems rather . . . implausible. Indeed, the king has no nephews? Cousins? Any reasonable relations that he could fairly pass the throne to? Even an advisor of noble heart and competence? He must continue to rule?
And his sons must die? They cannot be imprisoned or exiled? He has ruled for 72 years but despite his efforts at unification, if his sons survive the kingdom will immediately fall back into factionalism and war? That doesn't sound as if he were particularly successful at ruling in the first place.

He is not indulging his desire to rule and wallowing in the power like his older son how exactly?
He is not being dispassionately logical no matter the consequences like his younger son just because he cries about it afterward?
His people will trust him not massacre them if they fail to meet standards after he slaughtered his own children for the same "crime"?

This is just another form of Lawful Evil, with extra angst for self-delusion.
Any paladin should want to remove such a callous kinslayer from power merely for the inherent justice. Saving the people subject to his rule from his tyranny for their own benefit would merely be a collateral Good on a grand scale.

[halfeye]

It doesn't work in the real world because we don't have people who get super powers just by being good people. Or bad people, for that matter.

It doesn't work in the real world, because we don't have objective standards of good or bad. Which means, in D&D it depends on the people playing, and thus could be anything.

[Max_Killjoy]

It doesn't work in the real world because we don't have people who get super powers just by being good people. Or bad people, for that matter.

It doesn't work in the real world, because we don't have objective standards of good or bad. Which means, in D&D it depends on the people playing, and thus could be anything.

And, well, you know... no magic in the real world, either.

[Beleriphon]

And, well, you know... no magic in the real world, either.

I think this might be the more important consideration.

[Drascin]

No particular reason why a good-aligned PC would need to go all RAR KILL at an undead spellcaster reigning in a kingdom, by itself.

Granted, it's probably worth keeping an eye on him. But overall, if the people in the country are fed, happy, and fairly judged, then a paladin is probably going to think twice before shattering the government and tossing the country into anarchy. Anarchy kills a lot of innocent people.

You might want to check the book series Craft Sequence, by Max Gladstone, to see what pretty classic Lich-kings that are actually not capital-E-Evil (but still quite humanly evil in most cases) can look like.

[Max_Killjoy]

By failure to align with the concept.


Imagine if you will the placement of your alignment was a spatial coordinate. to access the power of the concept you must be near enough to reach it.

failure to align means you are no longer near.

places in metaphysics aren't so much physical space in the real world, but points on a sort of emotional cosmic fabric

Almarck nailed it. It's an attunement thing. To use a more musical metaphor, you need to make sure you and your chosen Concept are in the same "key" to have access. Maintaining that tuning is outlined in your Code of Conduct. These actions aren't arbitrary prescribed restrictions, but the actual method of retaining your attunement to the Concept you serve. Acting outside of that code throws you out-of-tune, and requires great effort to return to the correct state. In this case, an Atonement spell would be acting as an Attunement spell, instead. Same general concept, (teehee) but for a different purpose.

That's actually hinted at/partially covered in the initial post when I bring up the Code of Conduct. It's easy to infer.

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

[Beleriphon]

Now, after the transformation into a Lich I imagine the Wizard-King would continue to rule in the fair and just manner he had before. Perhaps initially some of the people of Sevillus would be shocked and horrified at what the Wizard-King had done to his own sons, but I think over time they would forgive him after seeing his rule was as good and prosperus as ever. They may even grow to see the murder of his sons as an act of selfless sacrifice--a father cut down his own flesh-and-blood to ensure his subjects remained safe from the dangers of a chaotic and brutal world. After all, he must live with that guilt for eternity, and only it takes a special kind of man to willingly take on that suffering for the good of his people, right?

So, what do you all think? Is the Wizard-King an example of a "good" Lich, or is he misguided and selfish to the point of being "evil?" Or somewhere in-between?

He's evil. He killed two people for no reason other than to become a lich. The specific reason why often isn't as important as the specific act, there are myriad other answers to the question of succession and lichdom was the one that was chosen. Its an act of tremendous hubris and arrogance to assume only the Wizard-King can keep things in control.

Add to that the fact the Wizard-King knows any other evil actions required to continue being a lich and you have a recipe for that person that makes one decision that changes them forever.

EDIT: And also, how do you think a Paladin would/should react to this situation? Obviously not all Paladins are the same and they could have very different reactions depending on their Oaths/character designs. But how would a Paladin YOU play react to the Wizard-King of Sevillus?

Depends, I mean the Wizard-King did murder his own children for to his gain. By any stretch that would require justice for the dead. Perhaps the Wizard-King being reasonable accepts the Paladin's justice and begs them to take on the mantle of ruler. Or maybe they don't and it ends up in a fight where the people proclaim that paladin the new monarch of Sevillus. It wouldn't exactly be unrealistic for the people to follow a more popular foreign conqueror in favour of the person one would normally assume as the rightful heir.

That's even assuming the story about how the Wizard-King became a lich is public knowledge. There will be rumours, and supposition but after a while it will just be normal. In a century or two it will be just the way things are.

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

Probably, but that doesn't mean they're actually paladins in the sense of trained warriors. It does make for a fun character though if that's the background you wanted. All that being said given the way Oaths works in 5E since its the system that's closest to the way this is described I'd assume its more an order of warriors that dedicate themselves to an ideal to achieve such a state. I'd suggest becoming in tune enough to become a paladin requires a level of intentional effort to become in tune with a Platonic Ideal (paladin of ideal tables?) or Concept.

[ImNotTrevor]

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

Let me answer your question with another question:

Does anyone who merely believes really hard in their deity become a cleric out of nowhere?

The answer is likely no, for similar reasons.

And as stated before, you have to KNOW about the Concept to tap into it.

So basically, it works like this:
Do some people happen to be attuned to a concept on their own? Yes!
Do those people have the requisite knowledge to be aware of their attunement and make use of it?
Probably not!

Easy peasy. Becoming a Paladin requires effort and dedication. You can't accidentally become a Paladin.

[Logosloki]

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

Sort of. Paladins usually portrayed as making an oath. So, a person who lives their life so close to the virtues of a particular flavour of paladin wouldn't necessarily become a paladin.

Onto the main topic though about the lich and the paladin. Most paladins are not going to be sufficiently powerful enough to job a lich on their own (or with a small party) and most paladins are even tempered enough to know so and not act rashly. For most paladins it would be their duty to see that lich fall. Whether they help by forming the seeds of rebellion, helping out rebellions in progress, or just by sending word back to other fellow paladins (if they have such a network of fellows or orders). That last point could be more the point of status updates if they lich has been around for a while so that people have an idea of what the state of affairs is like within the lich's realm.

Finally though, legitimate just means that you have the clout or the force to be in charge and have that charge be taken seriously by enough neighbours, allies and enemies abroad. Consider the many places small and great on this earth that are still contested or only grudgingly accepted.

[The Aboleth]

By the by, he was king for 72 years and has 2 sons, but those sons have no children at all? That seems rather . . . implausible. Indeed, the king has no nephews? Cousins? Any reasonable relations that he could fairly pass the throne to? Even an advisor of noble heart and competence? He must continue to rule?

I'd imagine that the older son probably does have children, but either doesn't know or doesn't care to raise them--he's written as a hedonistic playboy who cares nothing for responsibility. As for the younger son, I think he'd view having children as an inefficient waste of time and resources--and thus, would have consciously chosen to not have any. As for the question of "no cousins/anyone else fit to rule?" --the Wizard-King clearly didn't think there was anyone else who possessed ALL the qualities necessary to rule effectively. Whether that was true OR was in fact a false conclusion brought on by extreme hubris, is a big part of the question.

And his sons must die? They cannot be imprisoned or exiled?

The sons' deaths are necessary because it is part of the lich-ification process (or at least, that's what I tried to imply when I wrote the story). Since the actual process is left up to DM discretion, narratively-speaking I imagined it in this case to require something that more or less amounted to "murdering your own flesh-and-blood."

He has ruled for 72 years but despite his efforts at unification, if his sons survive the kingdom will immediately fall back into factionalism and war? That doesn't sound as if he were particularly successful at ruling in the first place.

Again, the sons surviving isn't, in a vaccuum, what will cause the kingdom to fall. The Wizard-King certainly thinks that if either of them were to rule, they'd fail at maintaining stability and/or prosperity--but if a scenario were to exist where they could live and NOT rule, he'd have taken that option (or so the story seems to indicate). He had to kill them in order to become a lich--if becoming a lich didn't require that, he wouldn't have done it.

As to the second point--there are plenty of real-world examples of nations ruled largely by a single person that immediately fall into chaos and anarchy upon the leader's death. I drew from those when coming up with the story idea.

He is not indulging his desire to rule and wallowing in the power like his older son how exactly?
He is not being dispassionately logical no matter the consequences like his younger son just because he cries about it afterward?
His people will trust him not massacre them if they fail to meet standards after he slaughtered his own children for the same "crime"?

This is the heart of the matter, yes. This thread has, in part, been exploring the question of "Can a lich be good?" In coming up with a "good" (or at least "not Evil") lich, there can (in my opinion) be only two options:

1.) The lich has always been "good," but must have a plausible justification to undergo the inherently evil process of becoming a lich (this is what I try to explore in my story).

2.) The lich has always been "evil" but undertakes "good" actions because they are conducive to his own schemes/desires (this is what the eru001 explored in their story of "Bob the Lich").

At the end of the day, the process of becoming a standard D&D lich is an evil act. It requires that something horrible to be done, so if you're going to run with the premise of a "good or not evil" lich you have to explain in some manner why the person chose to make the "evil" decision. Now, your opinion might be "ANYONE who chooses to become a lich is inherently Evil," and that's fine. Heck, I might even agree with you--I think you can make a pretty good case that the Wizard-King is making a selfish decision that is motivated by hubris, but is unwilling to admit that fact so he chooses to believe it is "for the greater good." In trying to run with the concept of a "possibly not Evil lich," I came up with the story of the Wizard-King of Sevillus.

He's evil. He killed two people for no reason other than to become a lich. The specific reason why often isn't as important as the specific act, there are myriad other answers to the question of succession and lichdom was the one that was chosen. Its an act of tremendous hubris and arrogance to assume only the Wizard-King can keep things in control.

Again, I think this gets to the heart of the question "Can a lich be good?" If you're taking an "ends don't justify the means" approach, then the answer is probably "No, a lich cannot be good."

Add to that the fact the Wizard-King knows any other evil actions required to continue being a lich and you have a recipe for that person that makes one decision that changes them forever.

Fair point, though if I were to write around this fact I'd say that the "death penalty" in the kingdom would be understood to mean "Your soul is fed to our lord's phylactery." Don't want this punishment? Don't do something to warrant the death penalty. Of course, while being technically "lawful" it's probably not very "good." Maybe you can make a case for "neutral," I'm not sure.

Depends, I mean the Wizard-King did murder his own children for to his gain.

Indeed, that's one way to look at it. I think an argument could be made that he murdered his sons to ensure the safety of his kingdom (if we assume, as he does, that the Wizard-King alone is the only person capable of keeping everything from falling to ruin). Again, the act of becoming a lich is inherently capital "e" Evil (if we're talking standard liches and not including archliches or anything like that). If you're going to imagine a lich that is not, overall, capital "e" Evil then you still need to come up with a reason why they turned to Lichdom because the act/process can't be separated from its inherent evilness. Maybe that means all liches are evil and there's no getting around that, or maybe it means that one (admittedly horribly Evil) decision does not define an entire person's existence. I think the second supposition is more of an uphill battle, but can be argued.

By any stretch that would require justice for the dead. Perhaps the Wizard-King being reasonable accepts the Paladin's justice and begs them to take on the mantle of ruler. Or maybe they don't and it ends up in a fight where the people proclaim that paladin the new monarch of Sevillus. It wouldn't exactly be unrealistic for the people to follow a more popular foreign conqueror in favour of the person one would normally assume as the rightful heir.

Yeah, if we accept the Wizard-King as a fundamentally "good" person who feels--wrongly--that he was forced to make a horrible decision, I think he could accept the first outcome. If the Paladin successfully convinces the Wizard-King that it was not love for his kingdom, but hubris that motivated his decision to become a lich...yeah, I think he steps downs and turns over rulership of Sevillus to the Paladin.

Alternatively, if you're of the belief that ALL liches eventually succumb to Evilness due to the corrupt and vile nature of being an undead wizard, then he probably doesn't admit he was wrong in the first place and fights the Paladin.

That's even assuming the story about how the Wizard-King became a lich is public knowledge. There will be rumours, and supposition but after a while it will just be normal. In a century or two it will be just the way things are.

I'd imagine it would become public knowledge--if not right away, then certainly not after too long. Some would oppose the whole thing on principle, but I imagine some could be convinced that the act was a "great sacrifice" on the Wizard-King's part--he chose the welfare of millions over his own sons, these people would say, and he carries the guilt of his actions for eternity yet still he shoulders the responsibility of rulership in a just, fair, and compassionate manner. As the centuries passed and the kingdom continued to prosper, maybe even ALL the dissenters would eventually be convinced that the results can no longer be denied--that the evilness of being a lich is outweighed by his benevolent and prosperous reign.

Of course, that could all be state-sponsored propaganda meant to build up the Wizard-King's virtues in order to wash away his horrible sins. I think it depends on who you ask.

[Tiktakkat]

I'd imagine that the older son probably does have children, but either doesn't know or doesn't care to raise them--he's written as a hedonistic playboy who cares nothing for responsibility. As for the younger son, I think he'd view having children as an inefficient waste of time and resources--and thus, would have consciously chosen to not have any. As for the question of "no cousins/anyone else fit to rule?" --the Wizard-King clearly didn't think there was anyone else who possessed ALL the qualities necessary to rule effectively. Whether that was true OR was in fact a false conclusion brought on by extreme hubris, is a big part of the question.

Since you didn't include any consideration of them, then clearly the answer is that he is driven by extreme hubris.

The sons' deaths are necessary because it is part of the lich-ification process (or at least, that's what I tried to imply when I wrote the story). Since the actual process is left up to DM discretion, narratively-speaking I imagined it in this case to require something that more or less amounted to "murdering your own flesh-and-blood."

Are they?
He couldn't just kill someone else?
That is really forcing the narrative in order to carve out some exemption - the king had to murder his sons because it was the only way to perform the ritual, so it is not really his fault.

Again, the sons surviving isn't, in a vaccuum, what will cause the kingdom to fall. The Wizard-King certainly thinks that if either of them were to rule, they'd fail at maintaining stability and/or prosperity--but if a scenario were to exist where they could live and NOT rule, he'd have taken that option (or so the story seems to indicate). He had to kill them in order to become a lich--if becoming a lich didn't require that, he wouldn't have done it.

As to the second point--there are plenty of real-world examples of nations ruled largely by a single person that immediately fall into chaos and anarchy upon the leader's death. I drew from those when coming up with the story idea.

Now you are forcing the outcome in an attempt to exculpate the king. - he has to continue ruling, despite his previous successes, because he is the only one who can keep things together, so he doesn't really have a Messiah Complex, he actually is one, so he isn't really evil for choosing to do it by becoming a lich and murdering his children.

This is the heart of the matter, yes. This thread has, in part, been exploring the question of "Can a lich be good?" In coming up with a "good" (or at least "not Evil") lich, there can (in my opinion) be only two options:

Not really. That was forced into the thread. The original post was rather clear that the lich was evil, just not that evil - or something, so maybe it could be tolerated for some reason.
All the wallowing in whether or not a lich can sparkle like a vampire is a complete distraction from that question.
Now if the thread was, "Is there some way someone can be a non-mindless undead and not be inherently evil?", then all the angsting over the justifications for a non-evil lich would be the heart of the matter.

1.) The lich has always been "good," but must have a plausible justification to undergo the inherently evil process of becoming a lich (this is what I try to explore in my story).

And that's the thing - you don't have a particularly plausible justification.
There are way too many questions unanswered, and way too many forced conditions, to leave you with anything but an extremely forced justification that do little but highlight the usual excuses of an abuser or tyrant.

2.) The lich has always been "evil" but undertakes "good" actions because they are conducive to his own schemes/desires (this is what the eru001 explored in their story of "Bob the Lich").

Which is a false dichotomy.
Just because you are Evil doesn't mean you have to kick every puppy and eat every kitten that crosses your path.
Doing something benevolent out of pure self-interest does not "balance" being a callous murderer as your day job.

At the end of the day, the process of becoming a standard D&D lich is an evil act. It requires that something horrible to be done, so if you're going to run with the premise of a "good or not evil" lich you have to explain in some manner why the person chose to make the "evil" decision. Now, your opinion might be "ANYONE who chooses to become a lich is inherently Evil," and that's fine. Heck, I might even agree with you--I think you can make a pretty good case that the Wizard-King is making a selfish decision that is motivated by hubris, but is unwilling to admit that fact so he chooses to believe it is "for the greater good." In trying to run with the concept of a "possibly not Evil lich," I came up with the story of the Wizard-King of Sevillus.

Exploring "why" doesn't change what it is. As such, you wind up not with an examination of whether a lich can be Good, but just how far a lich can go in justifying its Evil to itself.
As poor as it was otherwise, the Ravenloft setting was full of Darklords constructed on that basis. While your story is better than a lot of the ones in that, it still doesn't break the binary nature of the question, or add any particular new dimension to a rather standard villain trope. It is still just another evil undead wizard-king with a "tragic" past.

As it happens, I have one of those in my campaign background.
And the lich is fully justified as his enemies brutally murdered his entire noble House, allied with a viciously Evil lich, pursued him while alive in the name of imperial power, and subverted the people it ruled into betrayal.
The lich is still an Evil undead monster, even in its self-imposed exile.

[The Aboleth]

Since you didn't include any consideration of them, then clearly the answer is that he is driven by extreme hubris.

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

Are they?
He couldn't just kill someone else?
That is really forcing the narrative in order to carve out some exemption - the king had to murder his sons because it was the only way to perform the ritual, so it is not really his fault.

As I and others have mentioned before, the actual process of becoming a lich is left up to DM discretion--the exact details aren't spelled out to allow DMs the creative freedom to adapt the process to their individual campaign settings. So in the instance of my story: No, he couldn't just kill anyone else because I felt that the murders had to be about people he had a deep, personal connection with. Requiring the sons to die as part of the process ratchets up the Evilness of the lich-making process to 100--or at least, that's what I had hoped to convey (as well as providing some emotional turmoil to the decision on the part of the Wizard-King). You are free to feel that explanation is contrived, but it is the explanation I came up with for the purposes of exploring whether a person can or cannot be fundamentally "good" while still deciding to become a lich.

Now you are forcing the outcome in an attempt to exculpate the king. - he has to continue ruling, despite his previous successes, because he is the only one who can keep things together, so he doesn't really have a Messiah Complex, he actually is one, so he isn't really evil for choosing to do it by becoming a lich and murdering his children.

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

Not really. That was forced into the thread. The original post was rather clear that the lich was evil, just not that evil - or something, so maybe it could be tolerated for some reason.
All the wallowing in whether or not a lich can sparkle like a vampire is a complete distraction from that question.
Now if the thread was, "Is there some way someone can be a non-mindless undead and not be inherently evil?", then all the angsting over the justifications for a non-evil lich would be the heart of the matter.

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

And that's the thing - you don't have a particularly plausible justification.
There are way too many questions unanswered, and way too many forced conditions, to leave you with anything but an extremely forced justification that do little but highlight the usual excuses of an abuser or tyrant.

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

Which is a false dichotomy.
Just because you are Evil doesn't mean you have to kick every puppy and eat every kitten that crosses your path.
Doing something benevolent out of pure self-interest does not "balance" being a callous murderer as your day job.

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

Exploring "why" doesn't change what it is. As such, you wind up not with an examination of whether a lich can be Good, but just how far a lich can go in justifying its Evil to itself.

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

As poor as it was otherwise, the Ravenloft setting was full of Darklords constructed on that basis. While your story is better than a lot of the ones in that, it still doesn't break the binary nature of the question, or add any particular new dimension to a rather standard villain trope. It is still just another evil undead wizard-king with a "tragic" past.

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

As it happens, I have one of those in my campaign background.
And the lich is fully justified as his enemies brutally murdered his entire noble House, allied with a viciously Evil lich, pursued him while alive in the name of imperial power, and subverted the people it ruled into betrayal.
The lich is still an Evil undead monster, even in its self-imposed exile.

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

[Psyren]

Has anyone brought up Geb yet, a country in Pathfinder that actually has this conundrum? Well, the true head of state is a Ghost, but his lich queen is doing the actual governing and the entire country is teeming with undead (both intelligent and not.) Paladins have wisely started leaving the place alone after the last high-level batch (who had taken down another famous lich in the setting) ended up getting rekt and reanimated as graveknights.

[Almarck]

Has anyone brought up Geb yet, a country in Pathfinder that actually has this conundrum? Well, the true head of state is a Ghost, but his lich queen is doing the actual governing and the entire country is teeming with undead (both intelligent and not.) Paladins have wisely started leaving the place alone after the last high-level batch (who had taken down another famous lich in the setting) ended up getting rekt and reanimated as graveknights.

In Pathfinder, the lichdom process is defined, hasn't it? Like, I think it was offering your soul to a demon.



Also, yeah, Graveknights... the undead martial liches.

[Psyren]

In Pathfinder, the lichdom process is defined, hasn't it? Like, I think it was offering your soul to a demon.

It's evil but I'm not sure it's more defined than that. AFAIK Arazni's own process didn't involve a fiend but I could be wrong.

[icefractal]

You mean he would look at events, consider the various possibilities, then calmly murder anyone who might fall short of his standards of performance and concern for others, wailing and moaning every time he has to slaughter another person, family, village, or even province, because he so regrets having to take their lives "for the greater good".

I don't think that follows. To paraphrase Colossus:
"Everyone thinks it's a full-time job. Wake up evil. Brush your teeth evil. Go to work evil. Not true."
By a few evil acts when it's most important, or evil acts only against some groups and not others, someone can be evil-aligned, while being nice to people the rest of the time.

The OP's not even talking about a non-evil Lich, and that wouldn't be as interesting a situation anyway. This is about a Lich that is evil, that a Paladin would want to bring to justice, but that is also doing a good job ruling a kingdom of primarily non-evil citizens, who would be hit by the fallout of their ruler's destruction. It's a dilemma, and I don't think there is a single right answer. I wouldn't say a Paladin should fall for either action or inaction here, there are arguments for either.

I guess the ideal solution would be "Smite the Lich, while having a better ruler waiting in the wings, with enough support to ensure a peaceful transition and very little chaos in the process." Easier said than done, but not an impossibility.

[Segev]

It's important to remember this: if you think it's a justifiable, non-evil act, then it probably isn't whatever is required as part of the lich ritual. What is required by the lich ritual - whatever it is - is horrible. So vile, so evil, that nobody Good could truly justify it. Self-deluded rationalizations may apply, but that would be the closest one could come.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's important to remember this: if you think it's a justifiable, non-evil act, then it probably isn't whatever is required as part of the lich ritual. What is required by the lich ritual - whatever it is - is horrible. So vile, so evil, that nobody Good could truly justify it. Self-deluded rationalizations may apply, but that would be the closest one could come.

Personally, I'd rather know what the act is, and consider its moral implications for myself, rather than be told "trust us, it's big-E Evil, mkay?".

[Psyren]

Personally, I'd rather know what the act is, and consider its moral implications for myself, rather than be told "trust us, it's big-E Evil, mkay?".

Ask your GM - that's the point.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ask your GM - that's the point.

Makes it hard to actually discuss the matter here, if there's no actual answer beyond "it depends".

[The Aboleth]

It's important to remember this: if you think it's a justifiable, non-evil act, then it probably isn't whatever is required as part of the lich ritual. What is required by the lich ritual - whatever it is - is horrible. So vile, so evil, that nobody Good could truly justify it. Self-deluded rationalizations may apply, but that would be the closest one could come.

I agree, and I don't shy away from this fact at all. Murder is evil, murdering your children in order to gain immortality is probably more evil than that. What I'm interested in is the question of "Does committing this evil act, when weighed against decades of good deeds beforehand and centuries of good deeds after, still make the person Evil?" I think you can make an argument that while the act is undeniably Evil, the person might not be completely evil themselves but have convinced (or, if you prefer, deluded) themselves into thinking this one Evil decision was the only way to achieve the Good end they sought.

It's like the classic question of "Would you murder a baby if you knew that baby would grow up to be Hitler?" Murdering a baby is undeniably an Evil thing to do, but if potentially doing so could keep Hitler from committing genocide later in life...well, the question becomes murkier on whether or not you are still a "good" person for having killed that baby. That's what I'm trying to explore here in terms of lich-dom and who chooses to undergo it (without straying too far into "morally justified" territory, of course).

[icefractal]

This is homebrew, obviously, but I had an interesting idea about what makes the Lich process evil. Usually the reason is implied to be a single extremely evil act, but what if it was an ongoing situation instead?

So the phylactery keeps you alive moving despite the ravages of time and even despite being destroyed. Where does it get that energy? It takes it from the world. Specifically, from the lifespans of humanoids everywhere.

Every year a Lich lives, random humanoids somewhere (more often the ones located closer to the Lich, but it could be anyone) have a year of lifespan drained. That could be spread across multiple people or not.

Dying and being regenerated by the phylactery is hideously worse - it drains an entire lifespan's worth. So for a Human Lich, that's 81 (on average) years drained, which again could be split up among a bunch of people or wipe out a few unlucky ones completely.

If you want it nastier, make that a year per HD. So a 15th level Lich drains 15 HD-years: 5 years to a 3rd level character, for example. Since most people are low-level, a Lich is generally draining a lot more than a year per year. And when it regenerates - yow; 1215 HD-years for a 15th level Human Lich!

Is your extended lifespawn worth stealing time from everyone else? Even if you think it is, don't expect others to agree! And the more Liches out there, the worse the situation gets.


If I was going with this, I'd probably extend it to all undead, although with some variance:
* Mindless undead aren't as bad, because they can drain lifespan from any living creature, not just humanoids. It still could hit a person though.
* "Hungry" undead like Ghouls and Vampires get their energy from their victims, there's no additional draining going on. That would mean they use the rules from LM where feeding isn't optional though.
* Incorporeal undead use less energy, maybe as little as 1/10th.
* Mummies, and possibly other 'guardian' undead, can enter a hibernation state where they only use incorporeal-undead levels of energy, but can't take any action until something wakes them up.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is homebrew, obviously, but I had an interesting idea about what makes the Lich process evil. Usually the reason is implied to be a single extremely evil act, but what if it was an ongoing situation instead?

So the phylactery keeps you alive moving despite the ravages of time and even despite being destroyed. Where does it get that energy? It takes it from the world. Specifically, from the lifespans of humanoids everywhere.

Every year a Lich lives, random humanoids somewhere (more often the ones located closer to the Lich, but it could be anyone) have a year of lifespan drained. That could be spread across multiple people or not.

Dying and being regenerated by the phylactery is hideously worse - it drains an entire lifespan's worth. So for a Human Lich, that's 81 (on average) years drained, which again could be split up among a bunch of people or wipe out a few unlucky ones completely.

If you want it nastier, make that a year per HD. So a 15th level Lich drains 15 HD-years: 5 years to a 3rd level character, for example. Since most people are low-level, a Lich is generally draining a lot more than a year per year. And when it regenerates - yow; 1215 HD-years for a 15th level Human Lich!

Is your extended lifespawn worth stealing time from everyone else? Even if you think it is, don't expect others to agree! And the more Liches out there, the worse the situation gets.


If I was going with this, I'd probably extend it to all undead, although with some variance:
* Mindless undead aren't as bad, because they can drain lifespan from any living creature, not just humanoids. It still could hit a person though.
* "Hungry" undead like Ghouls and Vampires get their energy from their victims, there's no additional draining going on. That would mean they use the rules from LM where feeding isn't optional though.
* Incorporeal undead use less energy, maybe as little as 1/10th.
* Mummies, and possibly other 'guardian' undead, can enter a hibernation state where they only use incorporeal-undead levels of energy, but can't take any action until something wakes them up.

That would make an elf or half-elf lich really nasty, wouldn't it?

[Mordar]

Makes it hard to actually discuss the matter here, if there's no actual answer beyond "it depends".

Not if you accept that the parameter scales to match the campaign world's Bad-Stuff-O-Meter.

The answer is "it depends" but in the context of "...it (the specific act(s)) depends on the nature of the campaign, but it is always a horrible act of evil". Wanting greater specificity from the general rule system simply opens up a can of unnecessary worms (designer/publisher being accused of corrupting young minds, players/commenters wanting to show off how jaded they are by dismissing the "badness' of the act(s), encouraging EVILZ RULEZ types, etc).

Could greater detail help specific campaigns with questions of redemption/atonement? Maybe, but that's a hyper-specific instance and speaking to that level of detail across all the rules concerning alignments, "monster" creation (or even specifically "undead creation"), detection abilities and spells and so forth would render the rule set far too unwieldy.

- M

[Segev]

Personally, I'd rather know what the act is, and consider its moral implications for myself, rather than be told "trust us, it's big-E Evil, mkay?".

Ask your GM - that's the point.

Exactly. The act can be specific, in your campaign. But if it seems justiable, you should consider going darker.

Makes it hard to actually discuss the matter here, if there's no actual answer beyond "it depends".

Discussing it is not hard, just potentially uncomfortable. It just doesn't lend itself to hypotheticals where it is a moral quandary that "might be okay." It is #defined to be Not Okay.

Heck, in a multiverse with evil and good as literal cosmic energies, the specific evil act could be different for each lich. It could require energy literally only harnessable with an act of unspeakable evil, so if the act would be rendered justified by circumstances, it automatically makes it insufficient to generate the magical power and effect required to make a phylactery.

To borrow the Harry Potter explanation, if it isn't heinous enough of a murder, it doesn't fracture your soul in the required way. Or whatever the way it works in your campaign.

I agree, and I don't shy away from this fact at all. Murder is evil, murdering your children in order to gain immortality is probably more evil than that. What I'm interested in is the question of "Does committing this evil act, when weighed against decades of good deeds beforehand and centuries of good deeds after, still make the person Evil?" I think you can make an argument that while the act is undeniably Evil, the person might not be completely evil themselves but have convinced (or, if you prefer, deluded) themselves into thinking this one Evil decision was the only way to achieve the Good end they sought.

It's like the classic question of "Would you murder a baby if you knew that baby would grow up to be Hitler?" Murdering a baby is undeniably an Evil thing to do, but if potentially doing so could keep Hitler from committing genocide later in life...well, the question becomes murkier on whether or not you are still a "good" person for having killed that baby. That's what I'm trying to explore here in terms of lich-dom and who chooses to undergo it (without straying too far into "morally justified" territory, of course).

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

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

[Psyren]

Makes it hard to actually discuss the matter here, if there's no actual answer beyond "it depends".

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

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

(Rather, I generally find that the folks who insist on it being defined at the rules level are looking to game the system more than anything else.)

[Destro_Yersul]

This thread reminds me of Lord Balthazar the Undying.

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

[awa]

I had a minor villain in a game who was "unspeakably evil" (short version deliberate brain damage in a specific way) npc’s tried but couldn’t really put into words how horrible it was they could talk about vaguely the kind of damage and the timing of the act but it’s like the difference between reading about a sunrise and seeing it they just weren’t the same.

The thing was anyone able to perceive him in the act (he messed with people perception of time) would become more evil just from seeing it, because any lesser evil would seem trivial in comparison.

Part of what made being told it was unspeakable work was that it was a psychotic villain who said it was unspeakable not a good person.
edit
more generally
a lot of the more esoteric evil is vague just how bad is destroying a soul is it just murder + or is it some cosmically incalculably evil thing that far exceeds what our words can justify.

looking at it another way people often hate doloras umbrage more than Voldemort even those hes more evil becuase being a petty tyrant is something we can conceive and feel far more than a mass murder.

That also part of the thing just saying rape or murder is typically not going to get the same response as a graphic description and even that pales in comparison to the real thing. its easy to justify evil when its just words and faceless or even fictional individuals.

well that kinda got rambling their, sorry about that I had a point when I started I swear