Hello ladies and gentlemen, a question has arisen: if we have a character-a scientist-wizard who used necromancy and became a lich; at the same time, he has strong internal foundations that regulate him to be ascetic, asexual, completely immersed in science and use as little violence/murder as possible. He is practically devoid of empathy, but he has deduced for himself that it is irrational to be a villain, so in principle he calmly goes to cooperate and is likely to help the heroes / become one himself. The only obstacle in these matters is his apathy and passion for self-improvement / science. And in general, when he helps to protect a village, for example, he does not care about life / he is generally indifferent to deaths, but it is better to protect people than not to protect them, because their death from some criminal elements is irrational + helps to develop any evil that this lich does not like and prefers to interact peacefully with any people. However, he doesn't care about universal/divine laws if they try to irrationally suppress science/magic/ordinary mortals (that's why he became a lich)
You can describe the character traits of this character for a long time, but in general, they are mainly divided into: I - I am indifferent and have gone into science, I have almost no empathy
And on II: - I will prefer to the best of my ability/desire to help something good/legitimate, because I don't like irrational evil (although I don't like irrational good either, but mostly it does less harm/headache)
Oh, I forgot to add - he's absolutely not ambitious and he doesn't need power and stuff. Only cognition and order are important to the extent that it helps cognition.
And one thing: this character on the other hand, has a number of positions on which he will act altruistically (for example, he likes paladins, wizards, animal rights activists and he will help them if he is asked just like that, because he treats them kindly) - but at the same time has a certain amount of indifference to those things that are considered evil / bad in society (well, someone died and died, I don't care. I myself will try not to kill for no reason, but if someone else is killing, the very fact of killing does not affect my mood) + perhaps this character would like to coexist with the living and that they would not brand him evil for being a lich. Well, that is, if he needed souls for the phylactery, he would simply eliminate the conditional robbers in the forest near his lair and at the same time help himself + help the residents of the surrounding villages. And how do you think this character should be designated? (alignment) I just so often talk about true neutral, because I don't know where else to attribute "to the extent of selfish, to the extent of altruistic, more legitimate than chaotic (but not too much and rather it's not about laws, but about my own asceticism) a person who simply does not see evil in necromancy / limits himself and lives according to the conditional Laws of the Dead (as in Pathfinder)
It's buried in the last paragraph, but the question appears to be, "And how do you think this character should be designated?"
Ahh, thank you. In that case, I’d agree with farling in true neutral. Or, you know, write whatever on the character sheet. There are maybe half a dozen (if that) magic items where your alignment matters. Otherwise, unless your DM is really hung up on it, it really doesn’t make much difference what you say it is. What’s more important is that you keep the character’s behavior consistent, not what label you hang on it.
Becoming and sustaining oneself as a lich practically requires being evil. Entering a pact and serving an evil entity with the power to bestow lichdom is morally wrong, and so is feeding souls to your phylactery. I'd go with Lawful Evil. Evil because of the aforementioned requirements for lichdom, Lawful because of an apparent desire to fit into society and conform as much as necessary instead of indulging evil whims.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think Lawful Evil. Becoming a Lich in itself is a very selfish act (Which, for me, is the basis of evil).
He seeks immortality to the point of bargaining with a power evil creature and sacrifice souls constantly in exchange for that.
"Wizards that seek lichdom must make bargains with fiends, evil gods, or other foul entities. Many turn to Orcus, Demon Prince of Undeath, whose power has created countless liches. However, those that control the power of lichdom always demand fealty and service for their knowledge."
"A lich must periodically feed souls to its phylactery to sustain the magic preserving its body and consciousness."
Alignment could change with time, and I can see a Lich leaning more towards neutrality, but this lich is doomed to become a demilich or to be smited by his patron.
Sure, if you are the DM, you have the freedom to change on how to become/maintain lichdom on your setting, then, it would be possible for this guy to be True Neutral.
While lack of empathy may not necessarily equate to evil, you would need a strong set of ethics to prevent an inevitable slide in that direction. For example, if you truly don't care about life you might dissect someone who acts unusual just to see if you can figure out what makes them different.
For me it would boil down to why he wants to learn more. Does he want to ever share or pass down this knowledge or is it just for him? The combination of very powerfully motivated for solely your own gain and a complete lack of empathy with nothing else to balance it out is evil in my book. From Jurassic Park to Frankenstein there have been countless works on the effects of completely dispassionate science, and the overall verdict is not favorable.
But views of good and evil are personal and relative. The best way to figure this out for a D&D game is to jump in and play with what you know about the character and see how they operate from moment to moment. I don't think alignment should be a stamp on your driver's adventurer's license; it should be something that emerges from active roleplay.
Hello ladies and gentlemen, a question has arisen: if we have a character-a scientist-wizard who used necromancy and became a lich; at the same time, he has strong internal foundations that regulate him to be ascetic, asexual, completely immersed in science and use as little violence/murder as possible. He is practically devoid of empathy, but he has deduced for himself that it is irrational to be a villain, so in principle he calmly goes to cooperate and is likely to help the heroes / become one himself. The only obstacle in these matters is his apathy and passion for self-improvement / science. And in general, when he helps to protect a village, for example, he does not care about life / he is generally indifferent to deaths, but it is better to protect people than not to protect them, because their death from some criminal elements is irrational + helps to develop any evil that this lich does not like and prefers to interact peacefully with any people. However, he doesn't care about universal/divine laws if they try to irrationally suppress science/magic/ordinary mortals (that's why he became a lich)
You can describe the character traits of this character for a long time, but in general, they are mainly divided into: I - I am indifferent and have gone into science, I have almost no empathy
And on II: - I will prefer to the best of my ability/desire to help something good/legitimate, because I don't like irrational evil (although I don't like irrational good either, but mostly it does less harm/headache)
Oh, I forgot to add - he's absolutely not ambitious and he doesn't need power and stuff. Only cognition and order are important to the extent that it helps cognition.
And one thing: this character on the other hand, has a number of positions on which he will act altruistically (for example, he likes paladins, wizards, animal rights activists and he will help them if he is asked just like that, because he treats them kindly) - but at the same time has a certain amount of indifference to those things that are considered evil / bad in society (well, someone died and died, I don't care. I myself will try not to kill for no reason, but if someone else is killing, the very fact of killing does not affect my mood) + perhaps this character would like to coexist with the living and that they would not brand him evil for being a lich. Well, that is, if he needed souls for the phylactery, he would simply eliminate the conditional robbers in the forest near his lair and at the same time help himself + help the residents of the surrounding villages. And how do you think this character should be designated? (alignment)
I just so often talk about true neutral, because I don't know where else to attribute "to the extent of selfish, to the extent of altruistic, more legitimate than chaotic (but not too much and rather it's not about laws, but about my own asceticism) a person who simply does not see evil in necromancy / limits himself and lives according to the conditional Laws of the Dead (as in Pathfinder)
So, what was your question?
It's buried in the last paragraph, but the question appears to be, "And how do you think this character should be designated?"
True Neutral seems best, since there is a lack of empathy or desire to do either good or evil.
Alternatively, there are "alignment quizes" available on the internet through which you could try answering all the questions as this character would.
Ahh, thank you.
In that case, I’d agree with farling in true neutral. Or, you know, write whatever on the character sheet. There are maybe half a dozen (if that) magic items where your alignment matters. Otherwise, unless your DM is really hung up on it, it really doesn’t make much difference what you say it is. What’s more important is that you keep the character’s behavior consistent, not what label you hang on it.
Becoming and sustaining oneself as a lich practically requires being evil. Entering a pact and serving an evil entity with the power to bestow lichdom is morally wrong, and so is feeding souls to your phylactery. I'd go with Lawful Evil. Evil because of the aforementioned requirements for lichdom, Lawful because of an apparent desire to fit into society and conform as much as necessary instead of indulging evil whims.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think Lawful Evil. Becoming a Lich in itself is a very selfish act (Which, for me, is the basis of evil).
He seeks immortality to the point of bargaining with a power evil creature and sacrifice souls constantly in exchange for that.
"Wizards that seek lichdom must make bargains with fiends, evil gods, or other foul entities. Many turn to Orcus, Demon Prince of Undeath, whose power has created countless liches. However, those that control the power of lichdom always demand fealty and service for their knowledge."
"A lich must periodically feed souls to its phylactery to sustain the magic preserving its body and consciousness."
Alignment could change with time, and I can see a Lich leaning more towards neutrality, but this lich is doomed to become a demilich or to be smited by his patron.
Sure, if you are the DM, you have the freedom to change on how to become/maintain lichdom on your setting, then, it would be possible for this guy to be True Neutral.
While lack of empathy may not necessarily equate to evil, you would need a strong set of ethics to prevent an inevitable slide in that direction. For example, if you truly don't care about life you might dissect someone who acts unusual just to see if you can figure out what makes them different.
For me it would boil down to why he wants to learn more. Does he want to ever share or pass down this knowledge or is it just for him? The combination of very powerfully motivated for solely your own gain and a complete lack of empathy with nothing else to balance it out is evil in my book. From Jurassic Park to Frankenstein there have been countless works on the effects of completely dispassionate science, and the overall verdict is not favorable.
But views of good and evil are personal and relative. The best way to figure this out for a D&D game is to jump in and play with what you know about the character and see how they operate from moment to moment. I don't think alignment should be a stamp on your
driver'sadventurer's license; it should be something that emerges from active roleplay.My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm