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

[MonkeySage]

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

In neither country is being a lich necessarily illegal.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Righteous lich smiting is always a strong option.

It is also permissible to go "this isn't a high enough priority for me to deal with right now".

[bigstipidfighte]

fairly enough (for an evil creature)- That's a concerning clause you just added there, but if the Lich isn't a horrid ruler in the Paladin's estimation, I see no reason to do anything about it, except keep an ear out for trouble.

Most campaign worlds have enough problems without the PCs initiating a coup against a legitimate, fair government.

[Tiktakkat]

It doesn't matter if the lich is the legitimate ruler of a kingdom. As a lich, nothing it does can be legitimate, including ruling.
As for laws not prohibiting being an undead monster, again by definition those cannot be legitimate lawful and good laws, so the paladin is not obligated to acknowledge them.
And note, you said "fairly enough (for an evil creature)", so . . . still enslaving them, torturing them, executing them, stealing their souls, and all that stuff, just for "actual" reasons and not just for "teh evulz". Which means, yeah, still evil.

Now, does that mean the paladin must go Lawful Stupid Murder Hobo "just because"?
Not even close. Perhaps if he belongs to some order dedicated to destroying the undead, but even then there are other considerations that will make a mad suicide rush less than paladin-y.
If he lives there, he is likely to start a "liberation" movement.
If he visits, he will like agitate against submitting to the rule of an inhuman monster.
If the lich visits, he will have to consider just why he is working with a kingdom that works with such unholy abominations, and like have to move on or contemplate a local regime change. (If he isn't already because the kingdom hasn't outlawed being an evil undead beast.)

What he cannot do is just shrug it off as if it has no meaning at all.
He is a paladin, and cannot work with or for an evil creature. So no working from within to change things or anything like that, or looking the other way until the rest of the party gets suckered into a mission and he just has to help them on their quest for the lich.

[NichG]

Not all interactions need to involve sticking a sword into things. If the lich is undertaking an evil but legal agenda, the paladin can and should consider opposing them through similar legal methods as well. That might mean lending financial aid or investigative work or garnering support among judges and nobility for the victims of whatever dastardly plan is in the working, for example.

If the lich isn't particularly doing anything but is just hanging out, and is legally permitted to do so, the paladin needs to consider the greater social context that has come into existence that legalizes things like necromancy as a more important consideration than the existence of an individual lich. Randomly attacking an entity that has protections under the society hosting the paladin does more to harm the cause of good than to help - following an event like that a society may well consider prohibiting paladins in general from operating within it's borders.

[kopout]

I'd like to know what fairly enough means.

[MonkeySage]

For example; the lich isn't wantonly abducting civilians to sacrifice them to his vile god. He enforces the law, more or less with an even hand, he just punishes law breakers harshly.

He isn't taking action without what, in the eyes of the law, constitutes a "good reason".

[bigstipidfighte]

The issue here isn't the eyes of the law, it's the eyes of the Paladin. If the laws themselves are immoral following them does not make the lich morally acceptable.

If the Paladin thinks the lich and his laws are mostly ok, paladin should be free to lance down invading giants or whatever else is harming the people.

[Vitruviansquid]

The situation should be impossible to begin with.

Evil is not the result of actions, the actions are the result of evil. A Lich is by definition evil and unnatural. Therefore, the Lich's kingdom should not fairly ruled. Positing that a Lich could rule a kingdom in a way that "treats people fairly enough" is the same as positing a river that flows upstream.

But let's say that this *is* a river that flows upstream. Just for the sake of your premise.

The paladin would then have to fall.

A paladin must be both good and lawful. Being good, the paladin cannot tolerate the evil Lich doing what he wants if the paladin could combat him. Being lawful, the paladin must respect the Lich's legitimacy as ruler. Therefore, the paladin falls whether or not he attempts to remove the Lich from power.

This doesn't make too much sense, but of course, it doesn't make too much sense before the Lich fairly ruling a kingdom didn't make sense to begin with.

[awa]

frankly that just sounds lawful neutral.
Personally our hero should find worse evil and deal with that, theirs bound to be some bandits around somewhere.

Even if he is the type that can never let evil go without trying to smite it, well theirs bound to be worse evils out their he can deal with first that has the plus of being less complicated.

edit
i disagree with almost every thing the previous poster just said
A paladin need not uphold unjust laws so no auto fail for being lawful, and a paladin can tolerate an evil being to exist particularly if their are other worse evil beings he can fight instead. (otherwise every paladin fails instantly for not agroing all evil beings simultaneously)
a individual can be kind and loving to their family/ city/nation and still be evil just by directing it towards outsiders. So an evil ruler could rule fairly.

[kopout]

For example; the lich isn't wantonly abducting civilians to sacrifice them to his vile god. He enforces the law, more or less with an even hand, he just punishes law breakers harshly.

He isn't taking action without what, in the eyes of the law, constitutes a "good reason".

Are the laws particularly draconian?
Are the people significantly worse off than they were before the lich came to power?
Is the lich tempting/forcing people into evil?

If the answer to all of these question is no then you probably shouldn't do anything, taking him out would likely do more harm than good. Heck, with the exception of the last one I'd probably recommend working within the system to make things better.

[Milo v3]

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

In neither country is being a lich necessarily illegal.

This is really dependant on setting. In this hypothetical, is undeath automatically evil? Does alignment manipulate a persons actions or is alignment determined by ones actions?

[Beneath]

This depends on what lichdom is, and also what paladinhood is.

If lichdom is just, like, you turn into an immortal skeleton thingy with cool powers and you have to wear an "evil" flag that people with the right magic can see, no more no less, then the paladin probably shouldn't do anything, unless the dictates of the paladin's order/deity/source are that they're at war with anything flying an evil flag, in which case the paladin is obligated to make war on that country according to the tenets of their order and their own ability (a 1st-level paladin won't be obligated to take on the king's army on his own, though he might be expected to rouse a peasant revolt or to spur the lich's neighbors to invade) until such time as the lich is overthrown.

Note that there are kingdoms in published D&D settings ruled similarly, though usually they remove the requirement that liches be evil. Forgotten Realms has Baelnorns, for instance, and Eberron has the Undying Court. Notably, though, these liches don't ping on Detect Evil, probably to avoid this situation.

If lichdom necessitates acts of brutal evil; if you need to bathe in the blood of innocents to become a lich, if you need to kill people and consume their souls to remain one, then the Paladin is more likely to be moved to act. Even if kingdom's legal system only feeds the souls of people duly convicted of crimes that the Paladin recognizes the right of a legal system to make capital crimes to the lich, diverting a creature's soul from its appointed afterlife may be a crime against the gods for which the paladin may be called to act, or may be seen by a mortal-viewpoint paladin order as excessive punishment for any crime.

(also, like, "paladins are always at war with all evil alignments" doesn't justify detect-and-smite; being at war isn't sufficient to justify attacking noncombatants unprovoked, nor breaking the peace when both are guests of a third party. so a paladin who is a guest of a king who is receiving the lich diplomatically may well be required to either recuse herself or engage diplomatically, even if, by virtue of being a paladin and a lich, they are at war)

So basically depending on what the requirements are to be a lich, what exactly the lich is doing that's evil, and what being a paladin means, anything from "the paladin is obligated to treat the lich as a legitimate ruler" to "the paladin is obligated to act as though at war with the lich at all times".

[icefractal]

Positing that a Lich could rule a kingdom in a way that "treats people fairly enough" is the same as positing a river that flows upstream.

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.

[Unoriginal]

You have to define in which game and which setting this is happening.

[CharonsHelper]

Assuming that the lich isn't doing actively horrid things and their laws aren't too terrible, I'd consider them still to be on a paladin's list of 'things to do', but they'd be pretty far down.

So - a paladin I was playing would keep the lich's existence in mind and know that he should do something about it... after all of the other more pressing things which he'll probably never get through.

[Segev]

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.

Imagine the most saintly person you can think of. Somebody whom the world would be better off if (s)he were in it for all eternity. Now think of an act so terrible that, if you learned this person had performed it, you'd not just think less of them, but revile them for their depravity. Even if they only did it once, and only for the "good of the world" in keeping them active in it.

Perhaps it requires rape and murder of many innocents. Perhaps it requires breaking a soul's will to exist. Perhaps it requires wearing white after Labor Day.

Regardless, anybody who has undertaken the process of becoming a lich is a monstrous being, willing to do something horrific just to preserve their own existence. No matter what else, they chose that.

However, after that, they are not required to do anything evil ever again. It is conceivable to have a lich who suffered a change of heart and spends eternity trying to atone for his wrongs. (Any lich who went into it with this plan has a hard road ahead, as planning to "make up" for a wicked deed before you undertake it makes it all the harder to atone for the wickedness.)



Now, we also are told that, after some unspecified amount of time, liches wither away to demiliches. Demiliches require souls to keep functioning. So eventually, liches become soul-destroying monsters by necessity. But while in lich stage, they are not.

[hifidelity2]

The situation should be impossible to begin with.

Evil is not the result of actions, the actions are the result of evil. A Lich is by definition evil and unnatural. Therefore, the Lich's kingdom should not fairly ruled. Positing that a Lich could rule a kingdom in a way that "treats people fairly enough" is the same as positing a river that flows upstream.

I totally disagree
An Evil person CAN rule somewhere fairly - after all as stated by icefractal he may love his country / subjects just hates everyone else

I have a PC (that is more of an NPC now as semi retired) who was NE and is now LE. He rules his holdings. He is a lovely person to his family and his workers think he is affair employee. However the rest of the world can "go and hang" as far as he is concerned and if any one tried to attack what he considers to be under his protection he will very happily wipe them out to a man including their families, friends and allies. (He is also good friends with a Paladin but then the Paladins god owes him a favour which he has never collected)

[CharonsHelper]

Now, we also are told that, after some unspecified amount of time, liches wither away to demiliches. Demiliches require souls to keep functioning. So eventually, liches become soul-destroying monsters by necessity. But while in lich stage, they are not.

Which does seem to imply that eating souls was required in becoming a lich in the first place and they just eventually have to refuel.

[Segev]

Which does seem to imply that eating souls was required in becoming a lich in the first place and they just eventually have to refuel.

Potentially. It's noteworthy, if so, that demiliches seem to need to feed much more regularly than they did as liches.

It's also suggested that demilichdom is a condition that occurs due to failure to care for the body, so perhaps the extra soul-consumption is either a requirement of the higher magical power output of a demilich, or a requirement because they've failed to maintain their connection to life and so they need to supplement whatever held them here before with fresh energy.

[mikeejimbo]

One of the Tenets of Good is Redemption. Perhaps it is rare, but if Good stopped trying because of that they might as well give up entirely. A Paladin is... perhaps not the best agent to attempt to redeem a Lich, but he should at least consider the possibility.

[Beleriphon]

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

In neither country is being a lich necessarily illegal.

What you're describing is Thay in the Forgotten Realms. It is still an evil empire ruled by a mad lich king that is opposed by every other country that would be considered even remotely good.

[Alcore]

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

In neither country is being a lich necessarily illegal.

Not much. If he has nothing else to do? (Unlikley) he must oppose him. Needing to respect 'proper authority' he would have to do it in such a way as to not break his oath. So he will (most likely) be a vary public problem for the lich.

Often the paladin will be left being unable to do anything directly (which is not a fall). Say the lich is invited by the ruler for diplomatic reasons. The paladin can't simply attack (1. It disgraces his own Lord, (2. it means breaking laws left and right and (3. is a form of assassination. I could go on but those are all falls, not because he's a lich but how he went about it.

The paladin can inspire by example but it might take some time before taking the fight to the Lich.

[Segev]

It's also worth noting that this whole "by the laws of the kingdom" thing is presuming an awful lot of law BINDING the lich-king. Kings being bound by law in ways other than pertaining to how they deal with succession and granting of land was actually fairly rare. The Magna Carta was a big deal because it bound the English King by a lot more law than he'd ever been held to before.

The Paladin is not bound by the laws of a kingdom to which he owes no fealty. He won't care if the lich-king is "abiding by the law," though he might be positively influenced if said lich-king applies all laws fairly and doesn't exempt himself from them.

But remember that Paladins are not bound to obey unjust laws; they would never subscribe to such. They're bound by the rules to which they subscribe. They treat these rules as ironclad and foundational. They are not mere "guidelines." But they're not every system he stumbles across; they're one particular credo to which the Paladin adheres.

[Keltest]

What you're describing is Thay in the Forgotten Realms. It is still an evil empire ruled by a mad lich king that is opposed by every other country that would be considered even remotely good.

Thay also practices slavery and generally antagonizes its neighbors though. Mages are a class to themselves, and their leadership a class above that. It is by no definition a Lawful Good or even Neutral society that happens to have a Lich ruler.

[Unoriginal]

If this was in 5e, it'd be impossible, because of how Liches are in that edition. In the sense that even if they somehow ruled fairly, the Lich would do too much evil otherwise to be tolerated.

[GPS]

Come on. Liches are inherently evil, and kind of have to consume souls. A paladin going after one is always ok

[Segev]

Come on. Liches are inherently evil, and kind of have to consume souls. A paladin going after one is always ok

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.

[Keltest]

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

[AuraTwilight]

Plot twist, it turns out the ruler is a good-aligned archlich.