PDA

View Full Version : [D&D] On liches



shadzar
2009-05-20, 06:50 AM
So has anyone really had a lich make new phylacteries after having one destroyed to come back at the party?

Is this such a common occurrence that I am the only one that would have liches dead when body destroyed and phylactery destroyed then lich is destroyed. Even the body walking around would mean no more phylacteries because of the madness caused by lichdom would have you more set on vengeance than worrying about yourself and what may come if you fail to make a new one?

kamikasei
2009-05-20, 07:06 AM
On your first point, it would be an entirely reasonable reading to say that a lich makes a phylactery when he becomes a lich and that single phylactery is the only one he can ever have, irreplaceable.

For your second paragraph, I'm not really sure what you're saying. Of course if you destroy the lich's body and his phylactery then he's not coming back. But what do you mean about "the madness caused by lichdom"?

shadzar
2009-05-20, 07:23 AM
I meant that while still having a body the lich would need to make a new one. both destroyed at once means OOPS!.

Liches are driven mad over the years by having a soul just hanging around. It may just be something fromt he old alignment system to show how one cannot live forever without get bored of seeing and doing so much that there is nothing new so the human condition kicks and as well does the boredom, and even with new things that may not have been done a while in the entire of the world a long living lich would become stir crazy from being stuck in one place for so long that the existence itself would drive them mad.

So with this madness and a soul being around for longer than it was intended to, would a lich be in the right frame of mind to bother making a new one if possible in the world of the game, or would the madness and long years of existence cause the lich to be more driven to vengeance that worring about how to continue furthering its lifespan?

Thus that madness why most liches are evil because they have gone crazy and running out of things to keep them from being bored with existing. (Most because good liches used to be able to exist in prior editions of D&D.)

Ravens_cry
2009-05-20, 07:34 AM
A lichs phylactery is a variation of the story about the monkey who kept his heart in jar or for the matter Sauron and the One Ring. It is an item that contains their soul. Transferring it to another could be doable, after all, it was doen once when thier soul was transferred from the body, but the original item no longer counts as the lichs phylactery then,or least that's how I read the SRD.

JeenLeen
2009-05-20, 07:50 AM
I've always read liches as very intelligent and going to great means to protect their phylacteries and preserve their immortality. I haven't heard about them being slowly driven insane due to their longevity, but I suppose that makes sense. (To make another Lord of the Rings reference, being like butter spread too thin.) If such is the case, I guess you could make an Elan lich who would be immune to that as they are immortal and more long-lived races would go insane more slowly?

But liches do seem to be very intelligent as well. Even if insane, they became liches in part for immortality (at least usually), and as immortal they can see things in the long-term, so I imagine they would create a new phylactery before seeking vengeance.

A question on their immortality: when their bodies and phylacteries are destroyed (i.e., they are destroyed), are their souls destroyed forever or do they go to another plane (Abyss, Nine Hells, etc.)?

V'icternus
2009-05-20, 07:55 AM
A question on their immortality: when their bodies and phylacteries are destroyed (i.e., they are destroyed), are their souls destroyed forever or do they go to another plane (Abyss, Nine Hells, etc.)?

I think they go to another plane. Just my thoughts, of course, but I don't think it's possible to destroy their soul like that. (Save that for the Fiends.)

Then again, maybe souls are extra-fragile, and would be destroyed. I dunno.

Tempest Fennac
2009-05-20, 07:57 AM
I think the soul would go on to the afterlife normally, and it would be possible to revive the ex-Lich, but they would end up in their original form if this happened.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-20, 08:05 AM
Is this such a common occurrence that I am the only one that would have liches dead when body destroyed and phylactery destroyed then lich is destroyed. Even the body walking around would mean no more phylacteries because of the madness caused by lichdom would have you more set on vengeance than worrying about yourself and what may come if you fail to make a new one?

What madness? Why is it specifically some kind of violent madness, rather than a paranoid madness which seems both more likely and more fitting?

If both lich and phylactery are destroyed, the lich is gone forever. If only the phylactery is destroyed, the lich will probably go into hiding and work obsessively to find a way to build a new phylactery. Liches are liches because they wanted to live forever, usually; revenge won't be near as important as surviving until they re-ensure their immortality.

I could also see the ruling that destroying just the phylactery destroys the lich, though. It's an easy argument to make: the lich's life force (as per SRD) or soul is in the phylactery, and the body is essentially remote-controlled (extrapolation and inference, but logical). Destroying the phylactery destroys the lich and causes the body to collapse or disintegrate, since nothing holds it together anymore.


On your first point, it would be an entirely reasonable reading to say that a lich makes a phylactery when he becomes a lich and that single phylactery is the only one he can ever have, irreplaceable.

I'd go with this, too, but also allow for epic spells that can create more phylacteries - like Aumvor the Undying (Champions of Ruin), who made each individual bone in a skeleton a phylactery, then used all his paranoid cunning and expended incredible magical effort to hide every single one so they're practically impossible to find.

shadzar
2009-05-20, 08:36 AM
"What madness?"

Paranoia can lead to violence. Its madness, pure and simple. They have gone mad. Insanity has stuck. The more times than not the will to survive will be all that remains after many years, but until that time is reached there may be lingering other emotions getting in the way.


About the epic spells, etc; well that would be for a game that allows such then and cannot be a constant.

So allowing monsters to have epic powers that the players could never attain makes for an unfair game not worth playing. So if the game is not meant to run into epic fights and such then what happens for those games?

Does it matter for a one-shot if the lich can come back later and the game is never played again from that one-shot?

I am just looking at overall. how often have people used liches that come back AFTER they have lost their phylactery?

kamikasei
2009-05-20, 09:14 AM
Shadzar,

It kind of feels like your OP was responding to someone else, somewhere, and the rest of us are coming on on half of an argument. I'm still not clear on what you're arguing against.

There is a lich, and the party does... what? Destroys the body? Destroys the phylactery? Destroys both?

What happens next - is that the question?

The lich can only have one phylactery at a time - that much I think is clear. It's less clear, something for the DM to decide, whether he can construct a new one after the existing one is destroyed.

It seems pretty clear to me too that if a phylactery is destroyed, the lich remains, just without the safety net. How he behaves in this situation will depend on whether he can rebuild that net or not.

This stuff about liches going mad - is that taken from the books or is it your own speculation? I don't think it can be assumed to apply to all liches in all settings, even if you think it's a reasonable outcome for lichdom.

So what's your question?
- can a lich have more than one phylactery at a time?
- can a lich rebuild its phlactery after it's destroyed?
- does a lich whose phylactery is destroyed persist, or is it destroyed by that too?
- does a lich whose phylactery is destroyed seek revenge on the party, or go in to hiding because it's vulnerable, or go in to hiding until it repairs its phylactery and then seek revenge? (Obviously, thsi depends on all of the above.)
- are liches invariably mad and incapable of acting in their own best interests?
Which is it?

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-20, 09:28 AM
Paranoia can lead to violence. Its madness, pure and simple. They have gone mad. Insanity has stuck. The more times than not the will to survive will be all that remains after many years, but until that time is reached there may be lingering other emotions getting in the way.

There's no indication anywhere that liches are necessarily mad (unless you count the whole "went through with becoming an immortal undead monster" as a symptom; I guess that'd be a personality disorder all of its own), and certainly no indication they are necessarily or even often violent. Liches, if they are generally characterised by anything, are cautious and cunning, not violent and rash.

And paranoia isn't "madness, pure and simple" and is not characterised by violence. There's no such thing as "madness, pure and simple" (and that's a pretty classic display of "sanity"-privilege, and potentially offensive to anyone with a disorder) - the specific disorder or symptom is pretty important. People (or liches) aren't "just mad" and automatically violent.

Liches are not by mad definition, so in your own words, it's not a constant. If you're dealing with a rashly violent lich, that lich is going to be characterized by rash violence, sure.


About the epic spells, etc; well that would be for a game that allows such then and cannot be a constant.

So allowing monsters to have epic powers that the players could never attain makes for an unfair game not worth playing. So if the game is not meant to run into epic fights and such then what happens for those games?

Does it matter for a one-shot if the lich can come back later and the game is never played again from that one-shot?

I am just looking at overall. how often have people used liches that come back AFTER they have lost their phylactery?

Mellow out, man.

Epic spells are available to anyone and everyone who can develop them. The stats for Aumvor's spell are given in CoR. PCs can easily develop similar and better spells even if they're not liches. (Spell Mantle including true resurrection, Crafted Contingent Spells, whatever.)

As far as I can tell, I answered your questions.

shadzar
2009-05-20, 09:48 AM
I can only assume you are speaking form 3rd edition up because I can't recall anything called CoR (short for Cormyr?) at current from previous editions. In previous editions a lich went mad for many reasons.

I am looking at liches overall, just not a single edition. It is fine if you don't know the older editions, but they are not all the same, nor are liches in them.

But anyway....

@kamikasei:

Just the last few comics here have had me thinking and looking back over the years at how liches were used. Trying to figure out any instance where I or anyone else had liches coming back often or that would set a precedent for it to happen. Of course, Rich can do hat he wants in the comic, and it won't bother me how many rules he sidesteps, but was just thinking about my own use of liches in the game itself.

Of course, again, both body and item destroyed the likelihood of the lich coming back is mute, and the body destroyed get spawned anew when the phylactery does its job.

So looking at what most people have done when the reverse happens, or IF the reverse happens. What have people done when the phylactery was destroyed BEFORE the lich itself is?

Liches going mad was either 1st, or 2nd edition (pre-revised). I am working form memory here and hoping it wasnt just in an obscure module that wants to stick out in my mind.


So what's your question?

Has anyone had any liches that made new phylacteries when the original was destroyed to come back later to be a thorn in the side of the players? Does anyone remember a lich ever having it destroyed and the lich still alive? Has this ever come up and how was it handled?

Rad
2009-05-20, 10:06 AM
A common interpretation is that the lich is all well and fine when his phylactery is destroyed and won't even notice any change. Rich himself says so (or at least demonstrates that Xykon thinks this is the case) in SoD.
That said, what exactly happens will depend on your cosmology.

JeenLeen
2009-05-20, 10:25 AM
I read somewhere that, when the phylactery is destroyed, the life force/soul returns to the body of the lich. Thus, the lich can create a new phylactery. If the body is also destroyed, the lich 'dies'.

I just reread "Lich" in Monster Manual I, and it wasn't stated there, so I admit I'm not sure where I read it.

Beleriphon
2009-05-20, 10:58 AM
I'd warrant that a lich can create another phylactery. The only thing it does in game terms is let the lich reform within 10 days. If you destroy the phylactery all you're really preventing is the creature from reforming, it doesn't say anything about destroying the lich outright.

shadzar
2009-05-20, 11:16 AM
It isn't in MM1 form 1st edition, but if you take any heart to Ravenloft then Van Richten's Guide to the Lich has one key factor in it that I haven't read in a LOOOOONG time.

The potion of transformation that helps move the soul from the body to the phylactery.

Having to air the book out a bit from it sitting in storage so I will read more on it later, but if you have to drink a potion to kill yourself to pas the soul from body to phylactery, then I think only one phylactery is allowed per lich, and after that you are buggered since a potion won't kil the skeletal body of a lich.....

But this is all 2nd edition and I don't know if any of that was updated for 3rd, for the 3pp version of Ravenloft, or how official that material is.

Anyone know anything about 3rd edition Ravenloft where the undead come to life. :smalleek:

NOTE: So far no one has said they have used a lich more than once when the destruction of the phylactery came about, so I am reading, only that it is possible. Now trying to figure out if it really IS posible to make additional phylacteries in any edition.

(Rich really put a good plot in this comic to make this stuff have to be searched out and the rules of the game be sorted out like this! WOOHOO! Thinking is fun!)

Thajocoth
2009-05-20, 11:21 AM
"If your phylactery is destroyed, you can build a new one; the process takes 10 days and costs 50,000 gp." - Monster Manual

It's expensive, takes a while to do and the lich will feel vulnerable until it's done. I'd say the lich's first priority if their phylactery was destroyed, which they'd know of immediately, would be to raise the money. Then they'd spend the 10 days to make this new phylactery. The party has all that time to find and destroy the lich.

In the reverse direction, if a lich is destroyed, you have 1d10 days until he reappears in the nearest unoccupied space adjacent to the phylactery.

So, the advantage of killing the lich first is the possibility of surprise while the advantage of destroying the phylactery first is time.

shadzar
2009-05-20, 11:55 AM
"If your phylactery is destroyed, you can build a new one; the process takes 10 days and costs 50,000 gp." - Monster Manual

:smallconfused: page number and edition please?

EDIT: nevermind, this is something new for 4th edition it seems. I have never seen it anywhere before. Must be because they make a connection to Orcus with liches, and for player characters to be able to not stay dead when the lich template is applied. :smallconfused:

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-20, 12:34 PM
I would prefer to have it so that destroying the lich's phylactery kills the lich, even if it has an active body. It seems cooler that way, and I find it more intuitive.

I don't know if it works that was in any edition of D&D.


Its madness, pure and simple.
Madness isn't generic. It takes many forms that are quite different for each other. Or, rather, the category of "madness" is a lumping together of many quite different things.

Same thing with evil, for that matter. "He's just crazy" or "He's just evil" essentially means "I'm unwilling to do any real characterization".

Saying, as an "explanation", that anything is just anything is a cop-out. Everything that is has multiple properties and came about for a reason. Nothing is ever actually just anything.

shadzar
2009-05-20, 12:48 PM
I would prefer to have it so that destroying the lich's phylactery kills the lich, even if it has an active body. It seems cooler that way, and I find it more intuitive.

I don't know if it works that was in any edition of D&D.

It doesn't but makes the most sense. The only problem would be liches dying if they did something silly and left the phylactery in the wrong place at the wrong time, and would always need to carry it on them to protect it, which would defeat the purpose of having it as a safety net.

I agree it would be nice if some did, but then the lich is no longer the most powerful and feared undead. :smallfrown:

grautry
2009-05-20, 01:04 PM
kamikasei's list seems fairly convenient for answering this. This is how it goes in our games:


- can a lich have more than one phylactery at a time?

A phylactery is the item to which your soul is bound. You only have one soul.

So, unless the Lich is actually a Demilich or he uses Epic Magic to split his soul(yay Harry Potter) it's one phylactery only.

I suppose that with enough research(maybe represented by a feat?) you could create backup phylacteries. If the primary phylactery was destroyed then the soul would snap back to the backup phylactery instead of the body. But that's purely DM-fiat and has never come up in our games.


- can a lich rebuild its phlactery after it's destroyed?

Yes. The soul just snaps back into the Lich's body if the phylactery is destroyed.


- does a lich whose phylactery is destroyed persist, or is it destroyed by that too?

He persists, for reasons explained above.


- does a lich whose phylactery is destroyed seek revenge on the party, or go in to hiding because it's vulnerable, or go in to hiding until it repairs its phylactery and then seek revenge? (Obviously, thsi depends on all of the above.)

Most likely it will go into hiding and seek revenge later. But that also largely depends on just who the lich happens to be.


- are liches invariably mad and incapable of acting in their own best interests?

There's nothing inherently madness-inducing about Lichdom. A lich can become mad and it can be for reasons related to lichdom - like, if a person can't stand no longer being alive - but it's not the state of being a lich itself that causes it.

Zolem
2009-05-20, 02:05 PM
I could also see the ruling that destroying just the phylactery destroys the lich, though...

Pst; taht was 2nd edition where taht waas explicitly stated. This one they jsut don't get new bodies. I personaly go with the 'it's made as part of the ritual to become a Lich, you're already a Lich so you can't exactly cast it again' logic. Also while we're discussing this, what happened to the Hecuva's phylarchy? They have them too, they are just clerical Liches.

hamishspence
2009-05-20, 02:28 PM
3rd ed liches can now be clerical.

Zolem
2009-05-20, 02:32 PM
3rd ed liches can now be clerical.

Yes, they are called Hecuvas, so what happened to the one Redcloak made?

hamishspence
2009-05-20, 02:40 PM
incorrect: huecuvas are in MM2 (Fiend Folio, sorry) and not quite the same as liches. -6 to Intelligence and no phylactery equivalent, for one thing.

I can't find "if your phylactery is destroyed, you can make a new one" in either 3.0 or 3.5 MM

EDIT: Ah. Its 4th ed-specific.

And 3.5 has one source (Libris Mortis) which under Lich states explicitly that its irreplaceable- cannot replace a destroyed one.

Optimystik
2009-05-20, 02:56 PM
Liches are driven mad over the years by having a soul just hanging around. It may just be something fromt he old alignment system to show how one cannot live forever without get bored of seeing and doing so much that there is nothing new so the human condition kicks and as well does the boredom, and even with new things that may not have been done a while in the entire of the world a long living lich would become stir crazy from being stuck in one place for so long that the existence itself would drive them mad.

Generally, they're mad long before they shed their skins. Sane people don't usually seek lichdom; Vecna is the exception, not the rule. Even Baelnorn are seen as being a bit touched in the head.

hamishspence
2009-05-20, 03:01 PM
There is the Archlich. Not always sane, but some are- Saharel of Spellgard in Faerun. the Samular archlich in Faerun Thornhold novel.

shadzar
2009-05-20, 03:01 PM
Generally, they're mad long before they shed their skins. Sane people don't usually seek lichdom; Vecna is the exception, not the rule. Even Baelnorn are seen as being a bit touched in the head.

Well in a nutshell yes, but it worsens over the long life span, especially for someone like a human that sees people and things different than normally longer living races since their lifespans are so short to begin with it helps to skew perception.

I also don't know that I would call Vecna sane to begin with at any point in his later life/unlife. :smalleek:

KillianHawkeye
2009-05-20, 04:01 PM
Bah, every lich knows the best revenge is to outlive its enemies! :smallamused:

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-20, 04:42 PM
I can only assume you are speaking form 3rd edition up because I can't recall anything called CoR (short for Cormyr?) at current from previous editions. In previous editions a lich went mad for many reasons.

I am looking at liches overall, just not a single edition. It is fine if you don't know the older editions, but they are not all the same, nor are liches in them.

I'm familiar with red-box (Finnish translation, can't even recall what they called liches), 2nd, 3.0. 3.5, and 4E, and with multiple other games that have liches, too.

CoR refers to Champions of Ruin; I tend to use the WotC abbreviation after typing out the full name once in a post. It's a 3.5 book, yes, and it gives Aumvor's stats.

The 3.0/3.5 Ravenloft DM's books have liches in them, but I don't recall a great deal of detail. In Ravenloft, liches are so unique (I can only think of one, really: Azalin) that they're very likely to differ wildly in abilities and whether they can have multiple phylacteries or create new ones after losing one.

Gorbash
2009-05-20, 04:44 PM
Paranoia can lead to violence. Its madness, pure and simple. They have gone mad. Insanity has stuck. The more times than not the will to survive will be all that remains after many years, but until that time is reached there may be lingering other emotions getting in the way.

Am I the only one who'll suggest that Liches can't go insane since they're undead, and you know, not being affected by mind-influencing effects, both magical and ordinary?

shadzar
2009-05-20, 04:48 PM
CoR refers to Champions of Ruin; I tend to use the WotC abbreviation after typing out the full name once in a post. It's a 3.5 book, yes, and it gives Aumvor's stats.

OK never read that book, so it is all new to me. But I still don't think liches are limited to epic-level games.

@Gorbash: another quirk about liches. Maybe it was the proces preparing to and becoming a lich that causes one to go mad at the time of attaining lichdom. ???

hamishspence
2009-05-20, 04:53 PM
liches- no. Liches with multiple phylacteries, yes.

Lowest power lich in Libris Mortis- 11th level Adept. Much weaker than your standard lich.

Gorbash
2009-05-20, 04:56 PM
@Gorbash: another quirk about liches. Maybe it was the proces preparing to and becoming a lich that causes one to go mad at the time of attaining lichdom. ???

Why would it? You can't really discuss theories about lich's 'madness' with no reliable proof, either from their fluff or their stats.

hamishspence
2009-05-20, 05:00 PM
Intelligent Undead in Open grave, even souled ones, apparently change in personality over time, even if they don't go mad.

so a 1000 year old lich will be more evil in general nature than the same lich at 1 year of lichdom.

Zolem
2009-05-20, 05:08 PM
Bah, every lich knows the best revenge is to outlive its enemies! :smallamused:

No, here is what you do. You kill your enemies after they have kids. You let the kids grow up, establish themselves in the world, maybe use an agent or two to actualy make their lives better. Let them marry and haave kids. Then tear theri lives down around them as they watch you destroy all their happyness, then kill them. Their tortured souls will likly result in the creation of a natural undead, which you leave to haunt the place of it's ruin and bring missery to others. THAT is the ultimate revenge. And as an age-less being, you can do it ad-infinitum with variations. You can even have fun dreaming up diferent types of exquisit tortures. Hell, you could let the children survive (again) and do the same thing to them untill you finaly get bored of that bloodline and wipe it out.

Ravens_cry
2009-05-20, 05:17 PM
Intelligent Undead in Open grave, even souled ones, apparently change in personality over time, even if they don't go mad.

so a 1000 year old lich will be more evil in general nature than the same lich at 1 year of lichdom.
It is assumed that immortality will change ones perspective. Of course, it also depends on the race. For an Elf, 1000 years, while by no means a short amount of time, isn't quite the same as for a human lich.
One saw 'only' a few generations pass by, the human went from 1066 and all that to NASA gearing up to go to the moon.
It would be hard not to think of other creatures, like those tiresome mercenaries and thieves who are always poking around in your tower, as been not as important as they used to be. If a creature is born one moment, and dust the next, what real importance do their goals have? It will all go down to darkness, sooner or later, usally sooner rather then later.
One mustn't meddle of course, but you do have the long perspective, now don't you. It is better in the long run,r ight?

shadzar
2009-05-20, 05:31 PM
Why would it? You can't really discuss theories about lich's 'madness' with no reliable proof, either from their fluff or their stats.

:smallconfused: It was in lich fluff from somewhere, I just have a dozen boxed of D&D materials from late 70's onward. Sorry I cannot read a few hundred books in a span of a few hours to find it. :smallannoyed:

Nelith
2009-05-20, 07:28 PM
alright, so can someone with Vow of Poverty become a Lich? You have to have the like 1000g phylactery but he would need it to survive...

Doresain
2009-05-20, 07:56 PM
i can see what sahdzar is saying about a lich being "insane"...long years of stagnation (which is what undeath really is) will begin to toll on ones sanity...you dont live forever, you simply exist...

but in truth, i dont think its really a form of insanity...you have to remember, that he is no longer human (or whatever race he was) or even alive for that matter...they can potentially exist forever, and im sure that would change ones mindset to such a drastic extent to be considered "insanity" by your average adventurer

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-20, 09:55 PM
OK never read that book, so it is all new to me. But I still don't think liches are limited to epic-level games.

Where did I say that?

And insanity, sure. I don't think liches would be particularly well-adjusted. Violent insanity? That runs counter to everything liches are about, thematically and stylistically. It's obviously not impossible, but definitely not the rule.

Doresain
2009-05-20, 10:29 PM
And insanity, sure. I don't think liches would be particularly well-adjusted. Violent insanity? That runs counter to everything liches are about, thematically and stylistically. It's obviously not impossible, but definitely not the rule.

oh no, i completely agree with you there...im just saying that the insanity thing makes more sense then other people are saying

shadzar
2009-05-21, 05:28 AM
Violent insanity? That runs counter to everything liches are about, thematically and stylistically. It's obviously not impossible, but definitely not the rule.

The thing is liches are no longer mortal. Let us take OOTS and other pantheons of Gods like Clash of the Titans, or anywhere else you have read about mythological gods.

The things they do would be insane by common mortal standings and in most cases violent.

People can live and die on a gods whim. That is not something a sane mortal would do.

A Lich is the unliving power of nearly godlike capacity. They have surpassed mortality in a sense, and even when heading off to become a demi-lich they leave their current plane.

You would think differently if you as Tsuki said in the comics, "walked a mile in their shoes".

It is a matter of perspective, and the lich was created for one primary goal. The person wanting to become a lich wanted power, and lots of it. They will do anything to gain that power.

Giving up your mortality and all that goes with it like being about to taste apples and feel, insane. Doing anything without remorse to further gain more power including violence is only the next step in that line.

TSED
2009-05-21, 06:01 AM
Couple things:

1) Weren't previous edition liches evil-only, and the non-evil lich variants were, well, variants? I remember the good aligned one for 2nd ed was elf-only, in particular.

2) The actual lich was based on a Russian folklore tale. The phylactery was kept on a tiny island in the middle of one of the huge oceans buried under a tree in several lock boxes and in a duck's egg. Or something.

3) Any calls of insanity are STRICTLY lich-specific. There were no calls of being insane in the entry, etc. etc. If you want to say this lich is insane, that's fine (there IS an appeal to a mad skeleton toiling eternally on clockwork toys or whatever), but that's NOT cause to blanket all of lichdom as insane. You can come up with all the justification you want, but it's still the six year old with his hand in the cookie jar explaining why.

Simanos
2009-05-21, 06:42 AM
incorrect: huecuvas are in MM2 (Fiend Folio, sorry) and not quite the same as liches. -6 to Intelligence and no phylactery equivalent, for one thing.

I can't find "if your phylactery is destroyed, you can make a new one" in either 3.0 or 3.5 MM

EDIT: Ah. Its 4th ed-specific.

And 3.5 has one source (Libris Mortis) which under Lich states explicitly that its irreplaceable- cannot replace a destroyed one.
Interesting. The games becomes more and more forgiving as editions go by.
2nd ed liches died if their Phylactery was destroyed.
3rd ed liches didn't die, but couldn't make another one.
4th ed liches can even make new ones.
I'm not sure I like this trend or 4th edition in general for that matter. I think 3rd ed was the best compromise of ease of play and not losing too much of the magic of the game.

shadzar
2009-05-21, 06:48 AM
Couple things:

1) Weren't previous edition liches evil-only, and the non-evil lich variants were, well, variants? I remember the good aligned one for 2nd ed was elf-only, in particular.

While rare the archlich was nothing of the sort for elf only. Even priests could become archliches.


2) The actual lich was based on a Russian folklore tale. The phylactery was kept on a tiny island in the middle of one of the huge oceans buried under a tree in several lock boxes and in a duck's egg. Or something.

I figured it was more along the lines of Rasputin, but both are Russian origins.


3) Any calls of insanity are STRICTLY lich-specific. There were no calls of being insane in the entry, etc. etc. If you want to say this lich is insane, that's fine (there IS an appeal to a mad skeleton toiling eternally on clockwork toys or whatever), but that's NOT cause to blanket all of lichdom as insane. You can come up with all the justification you want, but it's still the six year old with his hand in the cookie jar explaining why.

Again, it is a world view thing. How people look at the actions of a lich and view that only an insane person would do such a thing to themselves. It doesn't mean they have to be, but how they are viewed.

DeathQuaker
2009-05-21, 07:14 AM
I am running a 3.5/homebrew campaign where indeed the party has destroyed a lich's phylactery and the lich is still running around. Actually, in this specific case there is something of a "backup phylactery," but even if he didn't have one, the lich would still be running around. Why? Two reasons:

1) I agree with the sentiment that if a phylactery is destroyed while the lich's body is still intact, then the soul just snaps back to the lich

2) Because I find an epic battle with a massively powerful undead to be far more interesting than an epic battle with a small jar. Sure, you can have a grand adventure about finding and destroying the small jar (my party in fact did, obviously), but in this case I personally prefer to stick to the classic fantasy epic climax of big battle with monster (obviously YMMV).

(Of course, the way the story is laid out the party may end up choosing not to combat the lich, but that's a very long story and neither here nor there for the purposes of this conversation.)

The 3.5 rules don't state one way or another about whether destroying the phylactery destroys the lich, so if that's what you're using--or even if you're not--I'd say it's up to the GM to decide. A good GM of course will provide a plausible explanation for said decision, but I don't think there has to be a hard and fast call made universally by all GMs.

Gorbash
2009-05-21, 07:22 AM
A Lich is the unliving power of nearly godlike capacity. They have surpassed mortality in a sense, and even when heading off to become a demi-lich they leave their current plane.

Oh come on... Godlike capacity? Any mid-level spellcaster can become a lich, that's not even remotely godlike. Not even epic. Their power doesn't come from the lichdom anyways, it comes from magic. They're about the same power as any other spellcaster of their level. Being a lich just makes them more durable. Or in case of 3.5 it makes them Disintegrate bait.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-21, 07:28 AM
Giving up your mortality and all that goes with it like being about to taste apples and feel, insane. Doing anything without remorse to further gain more power including violence is only the next step in that line.

This was, in fact, my point, and undermines yours.

A lich without a phylactery, if it can survive in such a state, would generally not be risking itself in a bid for vengeance. (Especially against enemies who were capable of destroying its phylactery - a feat that must be harder than destroying the lich, unless there's some really weird circumstances). They want power and immortality; the most intelligent action (they are smart, after all) is to go into hiding and find an alternative way to guarantee immortality.

Simanos
2009-05-21, 07:30 AM
Actually Nostradamus was French not Russian.
Or maybe you meant Rasputin?


Couple things:
2) The actual lich was based on a Russian folklore tale. The phylactery was kept on a tiny island in the middle of one of the huge oceans buried under a tree in several lock boxes and in a duck's egg. Or something.

There's really a Russian tale like that? Can you name it? I would love to read it.
I thought Liches were from Jewish myth (like Golems are) because the whole phylactery box with scrolls of "prayers" inside is something actually done by some in the Hebrew faith. They strap them on their wrist or their head for some ceremony (wikipedia has more info).
One could say this almost has a hint of anti-Semitism so we're lucky they didn't make D&D liches have the dragon's hoarding obsession or we'd never hear the end of this.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-21, 07:30 AM
This was, in fact, my point, and undermines yours.

A lich without a phylactery, if it can survive in such a state, would generally not be risking itself in a bid for vengeance. (Especially against enemies who were capable of destroying its phylactery - a feat that must be harder than destroying the lich, unless there's some really weird circumstances). They want power and immortality; the most intelligent action (they are smart, after all) is to go into hiding and find an alternative way to guarantee immortality.

Contingent true resurrection, kill yourself, become a lich again. Done.

Gorbash
2009-05-21, 08:29 AM
Couple things:
2) The actual lich was based on a Russian folklore tale. The phylactery was kept on a tiny island in the middle of one of the huge oceans buried under a tree in several lock boxes and in a duck's egg. Or something.

It's not Russian per-se, it's a common tale of Slavic mythology, it's just named different in every one.

In Russian, it's Koschei the Deathless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koschei).
In Serbian, it's Bash-Chelik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%C5%A1_%C4%8Celik) (literal translation would be Really Hard Steel)

Their souls are hidden in animals, and they themselves are not Undead but demigod-like creatures, but yeah, it's basically a Phylactery.

shadzar
2009-05-21, 10:14 AM
So D&D was stolen in large chunks from the whole worlds mythology.....

Does anything help us narrow down these darn things called liches to know how people have used them in games? :smallredface:

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-21, 10:15 AM
So D&D was stolen in large chunks from the whole worlds mythology.....

Well yeah... I mean, elves and dwarves are European folklore for a start.

Doresain
2009-05-21, 10:24 AM
Well yeah... I mean, elves and dwarves are European folklore for a start.

well more specifically, the elves in DnD are based more so on Tolkiens representation...same with most of the greenskin races