Can a lich re-create their phylactery?

[Adama]

I've never played D&D really, so pardon me if this is a dumb question, but it's not covered by the D20 SRD. If a lich's phylactery is destroyed, while the lich is not in it, can the phylactery be recreated? Are they replaceable? Or is it a one time thing, and once it's gone it's gone?

I ask because
In SOD, Xykon casually brushes off Redcloak's threat to destroy the phylactery. Obviously that wouldn't harm him overmuch if he weren't in it, but if they're unique losing it would still make him more vulnerable.

[RMS Oceanic]

The rules are silent on whether a phylactery can be replaced. Whether or not this is a viable plan for Xykon to protect himself remains solely the domain of Rich's storytelling choices.

[derfenrirwolv]

The Rules don't say, so whatever makes a better story.

[pendejochy]

It'd be pretty dastardly if after all the trouble Redcloak went though, it turned out Xykon just made another Soul-Hidey place for himself while he was away, making all that trouble with the resistance pointless.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

As said before, the rules don't specifically say.

The way "I" DM a lich is the lich is only allowed one phylactery at a time, and if it is destroyed, he can create another one. It's just that he is vulnerable to perma-death between loss of the first phylactery and creation of the second.

I think this is Rich's rule for Xykon as well, but I'm not sure. The phylactery should survive ingestion by a sea monster, but if Xykon were to have himself destroyed to re-rez in his current phylactery, he would be vulnerable to the digestive acids and other hazards of life on the bottom of the ocean until he at least regrew arms enough to crawl out of the sea.

[Dragon Star]

It'd be pretty dastardly if after all the trouble Redcloak went though, it turned out Xykon just made another Soul-Hidey place for himself while he was away, making all that trouble with the resistance pointless.

No, it's clear that you can't have more then one at a time, but the rules don't specify weather a new one can be made after the old is destroyed. I lean towards yes, and anyway the process is both lengthy and costly, so it wouldn't really mess up the story.

[Psyren]

The rules DO say, and the answer is no (Libris Mortis pg. 151.)

The question is not whether the rules say it can be replaced; the question is whether the Giant is enforcing that particular rule. Given TE's over-protectiveness of this phylactery though, the answer seems to be yes.

[OrzhvoPatriarch]

A lich recreated or having more then one phylactery would solely be up to the DM, its the kind of rule that will not come up for the PCs in well over 9 out of 10 games, so the DM has a lot more freedom here then he does with the rules for say, spell slots. Of course the DM can fudge any rules he wants, its usually good form to talk about really big changes with players before hand.

That said, minor Start of Darkness spoilers.


Redcloak was the one who turned Xykon into a lich, so it is likely he knows quite a bit about liches and would know if Xykon could do some trick like this in the Oots world. He certainly knew more about liches than Xykon did back then, and in all likelyhood still does now.

[pendejochy]

No, it's clear that you can't have more then one at a time, but the rules don't specify weather a new one can be made after the old is destroyed. I lean towards yes, and anyway the process is both lengthy and costly, so it wouldn't really mess up the story.

Oh, what I meant is him making another one, and transferring his soul from the old one to the new one without anyone knowing.

People are thinking Xykon is really dumb to be falling for Redcloak's lies, but he might be doing the same thing he did in SoD. Just pretending not to know, while he has some sort of ace hidden up his sleeve.

It seems pretty far fetched though, and I think Redcloak is succeeding in tricking Xykon.

[Red XIV]

It'd be pretty dastardly if after all the trouble Redcloak went though, it turned out Xykon just made another Soul-Hidey place for himself while he was away, making all that trouble with the resistance pointless.
If Xykon had done that, he wouldn't care that the resistance still had the original phylactery. He'd be saying it's time to go to the next gate before anybody else has time to secure it. Remember, all he cares about is the MacGuffin. If he didn't have to worry about regenerating in an inconvenient location in the even of his body's destruction, Xykon would've moved against Girard's Gate about 170 strips ago.

[Starwulf]

I don't nkow if this is exactly canon in Forgotten realms or not, but I remember in Neverwinter Nights: The HOrdes of the Underdark, there was a lich creature that yo uhave to kill at one point in time or another(I don't remember if it was a Bone Dragon or something else), and he had like 3 or 4 phylacteries sitting around his den, and you had to kill ALL Of them before you could kill him, otherwise he'd just regenerate in one of them and you'd have to fight him all over again.

[CN the Logos]

Here's the quote from Libris Mortis:


A lich can construct only a single phylactery. A lich whose phylactery is destroyed suffers no harm, but cannot construct a new one.

Remarkably unambiguous. If the phylactery breaks, Xykon could theoretically last forever, but in practice he doesn't have enough HP to stand against an assault by a couple of determined mid to high level melee characters, provided they can somehow keep him from just flying out of range.

[Hamiltonz]

As a DM I see the phylactery not as something that protects the lich but as something that protects the soul. A device that prevents capture (or natural progression) allowing the lich to control it's existence on it's own terms.

By my rule there can be only one that actually holds the soul, but there can be many devices ready to receive the soul should that one be destroyed.

I would argue that the above example, of being required to destroy several devices before being able to ultimately defeat a lich dragon, would be more about the room not letting the soul escape, and the devices being attractors that eventually draw the soul in like a magnet. Once the dragon's soul falls into one then it can do the normal rebirth that a lich with a phylactery is capable of doing.

I would rule that a soul just released from a phylactery would do what souls normally do when released from a dieing body. So normally, without a soul-trapping-room, the soul would be lost immediately after the device is broken. Unless...a powerful cleric was right there ready to bind the soul again.

What makes the lich dragon room really nasty is that anyone dieing in that room will also have their soul trapped. The phylacteries may or may not act as soul gems (storage devices). It doesn't matter too much as the first thing the lich would do is 'consume' those souls. (nasty!)

I have no idea what The Giant has planned for Xykon.

I am really looking forward to what happens next!

[Bulldog Psion]

My take would be that it's replaceable, but there can only be one at time, and it takes a while to make a new one. During which time the lich is vulnerable to being sent to the afterlife if they're killed, instead of creating a new body and "living" again.

[Heksefatter]

I am also among those who believe that Xykon would be able to construct a new one. That said, no truth has been established regarding this matter. It isn't like it is a well-established well-known rule. Most probably all GMs make up their own house rules in the matter (if they ever think about it) and more than likely that applies to the Giant as well.

[Knight.Anon]

*Shakes*
Sources say no.

[Orzel]

Sources say no.

This is important as it is stated somewhere that dragons who are forced in lichdom by cults seek to find theirs and destroy it in order to free themselves.

[raphfrk]

Sources say no.

This is important as it is stated somewhere that dragons who are forced in lichdom by cults seek to find theirs and destroy it in order to free themselves.

Couldn't they just kill themselves?

[Psyren]

Couldn't they just kill themselves?

They'd keep coming back, that's the problem. How many deaths would it take for you to go insane?

[Nurlithion]

More importantly than that, would Rich really copy Harry Potter by having the Big Bad make a bunch of soul-hidey places instead of just one?

[Tass]

They'd keep coming back, that's the problem. How many deaths would it take for you to go insane?

You'd just need one to find your phylactery, then you can work out how to destroy it.

[SaintRidley]

You'd just need one to find your phylactery, then you can work out how to destroy it.

Not how Dracoliches work. They die and their soul has to possess a new draconic corpse, crawl inside, and let the corpse form the basis of the new body. They don't regenerate from their phylacteries.

[raphfrk]

They'd keep coming back, that's the problem. How many deaths would it take for you to go insane?

The problem was that they had to "find" it. Dying should have solved that.

[edit] nm, I should have read to the end of the thread :)

[blazingshadow]

More importantly than that, would Rich really copy Harry Potter by having the Big Bad make a bunch of soul-hidey places instead of just one?i suppose i shouldn't tell you about demiliches or the Walker in the Waste prestige class.

[SaintRidley]

i suppose i shouldn't tell you about demiliches or the Walker in the Waste prestige class.

Or Aumvor's Fragmented Phylactery...

[SoC175]

No, it's clear that you can't have more then one at a time,
The rules DO say, and the answer is no (Libris Mortis pg. 151.) Actually that's only true as long as the lich in question isn't epic. There's an epic spell that creates multiple phylacteries

[veti]

I don't nkow if this is exactly canon in Forgotten realms or not, but I remember in Neverwinter Nights: The HOrdes of the Underdark, there was a lich creature that yo uhave to kill at one point in time or another(I don't remember if it was a Bone Dragon or something else), and he had like 3 or 4 phylacteries sitting around his den, and you had to kill ALL Of them before you could kill him, otherwise he'd just regenerate in one of them and you'd have to fight him all over again.

You misremember. There are multiple draconic skeletons sitting around, and shortly after you kill the dracolich it migrates into another one, but fighting them all is entirely optional. The phylactery is in the next room, there's only one of it, and a couple of whacks with your obscenely overpowered Sword of Pretty Much Instant Death is all it takes to put an end to it. Then it's just you and Vixthra's last body.

[Orzel]

Not how Dracoliches work. They die and their soul has to possess a new draconic corpse, crawl inside, and let the corpse form the basis of the new body. They don't regenerate from their phylacteries.

Yes, the problem with dracoliches had is that they tend to get mind controlled by whoever performs the dracolich ritual on them (as few can turn themselves into dracolichs) via their phylacteries. So when the draacolich is few up with the cult or wizard that created them, busting the phylactery becomes important.

[WowWeird]

Welp, my proverbial two copper pieces are clearly unnecessary, but I'll put them in anyway- by RAW in Libris Mortis, there can be only one (phylactery). My interpretation would be that when the phylactery is first created, the lich's soul is bound to/inside it. Unlike all other intelligent undead, you don't have the soul just hanging around the body (I think- need to check the SRD), it's just chilling in the phylactery. If the lich is destroyed, then it regenerates it's body by the phylactery. If the phylactery is destroyed at any point while the lich is not corporealized, the soul goes wandering free to the afterlife (given the "must be Evil" requirement of lichdom, probably to the Big Fire Below). If the phylactery is destroyed while the lich is physically embodied, the soul of the lich gravitates towards the mind it sprang from, eventually attaching itself to the lich just like your average sentient undead- ie, if you kill it once it's gone forever (or until raised :smallsmile:). All of this is well and good (if possibly unspecified/open to interpretation) by RAW. I disagree with Libris Mortis, though- if the lich's soul is clearly not in the Big Fire Below, there is no reason why another vessel couldn't be provided for it. Perhaps getting the soul off the lich a second time would require a Soul Bind, a Wish/Miracle/Reality Revision, or epic magic, but it should be doable, with the same cost for the phylactery (and maybe the ritual- depends on if you think the ritual prepares the body for lichification or also binds the soul to the phylactery and gives it regenerative capacities- you don't see Soul Bound characters regenerating their bodies around the gem, do you? :smallsmile:). So, RAI and fluff seem to indicate that it should be possible to recreate a phylactery (but only once it's gone- I don't think you could split your soul between two or more- where would you regenerate?), but RAW in Libris Mortis says no.

Can't...stop...beating...dead....horse! AAAAAAA!!!!! :smallamused:

[Valyrian]

More importantly than that, would Rich really copy Harry Potter by having the Big Bad make a bunch of soul-hidey places instead of just one?
Don't think so, but horcruxes resemble the phylactery only very superficially anyway. It rather annoys me to see posts that start with "but if it's like a horcrux ...".

While I know nothing about the D&D rules, it seems to be consensus that making multiple phylacteries is not possible. That raises the question, what prevents one from making another, if recreating a destroyed phylactery is possible? You could then use the attempt of recreating your phylactery as a litmus test to determine whether your phylactery was destroyed: if it works, you get a new one, if it doesn't, you can at least safely assume that it's still there. However that plays out from an in-story perspective.

From a Doylist point of view, I don't think Xykon will be able to recreate a destroyed phylactery, no matter what the rules say.

[Ruerl]

A short note on Xykon being able to make a new phylactory:
Who says he knows how to? He did'nt make the first phylactory, he may not even know the ritual/spells. Redcloak, not Xykon, turned Xykon into a lich. (this is from the "start of darkness" printed in nostalgic grayscale etc.)

[WowWeird]

While I know nothing about the D&D rules, it seems to be consensus that making multiple phylacteries is not possible. That raises the question, what prevents one from making another, if recreating a destroyed phylactery is possible? You could then use the attempt of recreating your phylactery as a litmus test to determine whether your phylactery was destroyed: if it works, you get a new one, if it doesn't, you can at least safely assume that it's still there. However that plays out from an in-story perspective.

Well, the first problem there is the "if"- RAW say that it isn't possible, RAI and fluff seem to disagree, blah blah blah.
The second, which assumes that making a phylactery replacement is possible, is simple cost.
The phylactery costs 120,000 gp and 4,800 XP to create
While this is only a medium annoyance for characters like our beloved Xykon, the bare-minimum level for lichdom is level 11. At that point, you're expected to have around only 82,000 gp on you, the bulk of which is usually in magical items and one-use items (potions, scrolls, etc) that eat up money very quickly- and this isn't counting the devastating 120,000 gp cost from the original process! Even if you go up a few levels, you still hit income issues- at sixteenth level (which, at least in OOTS-world, seems very rare and prestigious), you are expected to have ~240,000 gil. So, if you never bought a potion, have no items on you (and are thus much less effective than normal), and have already gone through the lich process, you can use all of your money remaining and a hefty 4,800 XP (not all that much, actually- on the Pathfinder tables that I'm using because I'm too lazy to grab my DMG, fighting a CR16 monster with three or four other people nets you a cool 19,200 XP- more than enough to cover the issue) you can check to see if your phylactery still exists! Why doesn't everyone do this?
Because pre-epic levels, 120,000 gil is far too much for what passes as a quick checkup on your soul- not even where it is or who/what has it, just "It does/doesn't exist".

[Ast]

@WowWeird

Final Fantasy fan, I take? Unless there is other setting that uses "gil" for currency :smalltongue:

While one could agree that Xykon's arcane knowledge has increased since SoD, I don't think it's on the "creating one own's phylactery" level. Besides, as it has been mentioned: according to Libris Mortis, it cannot be done. Unless, of course, Rich decides to play his "story first" card.

[brionl]

A phylactery is created as part of the process that turns you into a lich. You can't turn yourself into a lich again, so only one phylactery per customer.

[WowWeird]

@WowWeird
Final Fantasy fan, I take? Unless there is other setting that uses "gil" for currency :smalltongue:

:smallbiggrin: Actually, I've only played 1 and 2. They were a lot of fun, though. I'm not sure where me saying "gil" to shorten gold pieces comes form- it's a good shorthand and people seem to get it easily. I would guess the phrase came from FF, but I really don't know.

[EnragedFilia]

Alundra (the first one anyway, I never played the second) had currency called "gilder". That's the only other instance I can think of just now, although there certainly might be others.

Also, as I've never actually heard of the Libris Mortis, it seems likely that it's non-core, and at least plausible that Rich is ignoring what it has to say about phylacteries. More to the point, Redcloak doesn't call Xykon's bluff in SoD when he claims he can create a new one, so it appears that they at least both believe it's possible.

[Ast]

Actually...

I don't remember Xykon telling Redcloak that he can create a new one. He just says that his soul isn't there, so destroying it wouldn't affect Xykon at that moment.

[Hamiltonz]

{{scrubbed}}

"A lich can construct only a single phylactery."

This is the quote that keeps popping up. My initial reaction was that there can be multiple devices but only one that is THE phylactery. Meaning that a soul cannot be divided into parts and the parts distributed amongst multiple devices. Although, after reading the rest of the text, I now see that this intepretation is wrong. So here is the rest of the text:

"A lich whose phylactery is desroyed suffers no harm, but cannot construct a new one. If a lich without a phylactory is slain, the lich is forever destroyed."

Pretty much a game ender. The "cannot construct a new one" is definate and final in it's tone and meaning.

And finally:

"The phylactery can exist in other forms as well, though it must either contain or bear an arcane inscription."

See, I've always thought of a phylactery as a supper soul gem of mighty mightness. I forgot that DnD is based on legends and myths as much as fiction and fantasy. What a lich is doing is basically erasing it's name from the book of life and the book of death and placing it into it's own book "Nyeh Nah Na-Nah Nyeh Nyeh you can't touch me".

This still leaves open the possibility of replacing an old phylactery with a new one. The lich just erases it's name from the NNNNNyctm book and writes it into "So You think You Know Where My Soul Is, But It's Not There Anymore" book.


This in no way means that The Giant can't make up his own rules.

[DamarGemirad]

I am not sure of the "Authenticity" of the 3.5 epic level handbook. But there is a devastating creature called "Demilich."

Not going to type out all the details, but basically its a template added to a lich character, granting extra bonuses ect.

One of its bonuses allows for the Character to have up to 8 soul gem/phylactery.

To be honest, I think the story is gearing up for :Xykon: to become a demilich.

Trap the Soul - Remember the two spirits he has in his gem?

[EnragedFilia]

I am not sure of the "Authenticity" of the 3.5 epic level handbook. But there is a devastating creature called "Demilich."

Fun fact: the epic handbook is in the SRD
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/demilich.htm
It's a flying lich skull that can use trap the soul at-will.

[ti'esar]

The idea that Xykon may wind up becoming a demilich has been thrown around before. I'm leaning towards disbelieving it, but it's not out of the question.

[SaintRidley]

The idea that Xykon may wind up becoming a demilich has been thrown around before. I'm leaning towards disbelieving it, but it's not out of the question.

Yeah. Xykon didn't even know what a lich was before Redcloak floated the idea.
Doubtful on him becoming a demilich.

Though it would effectively push him into the god-tier.

[Leecros]

Yeah. Xykon didn't even know what a lich was before Redcloak floated the idea.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Xykon hasn't done any research since then.

[SoC175]

I just downloaded the PDF for libris mortis in order to get the real dope on what it says on the matter. You're aware that you are talking about a PDF that can not be downloaded legally?


Pretty much a game ender. The "cannot construct a new one" is definate and final in it's tone and meaning. That is until epic magic comes along and breaks all previous rules

[WowWeird]

In regards to Xykon becoming a demilich-why? He's already beyond the power level of 99.9% of the world, and (for narrative purposes) is statistically already way beyond the Order. Does he really need to spend 960,000 gold to gain yet another template?

[Spacewolf]

well he has recently been pushed out of his comfort zone in the soon and darth v fights these might make him looking for ways to become even more powerful

[shadowkiller]

I think that as a character Xykon might go for the demilich due to the massive power increase it would give him. However I can't see it happening in this comic as it would put him so far beyond the Order's capabilities that it would require a huge amount of deus ex machina (possibly literally from the gods) that it would make no sense in terms of the story to change him in the first place.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Not into D&D but I had a thought here:

If a lich can't make a new phylactery because it can ONLY be made when he becomes a lich, then maybe there's a work around for that:

1. A lich loses his soul hidey place and needs another.

2. A phylactery can only be made with a lich as he's being made into a lich.

3. A lich is an undead creature, so he uses powerful magic to essentially resurrect himself as a living person, then goes thru the lichification process again and makes a new phylactery in the process.

So maybe it's a kludge, but it might work if a lich can be resurrected as a live person again.

[Phosphate]

That raises the question, what prevents one from making another, if recreating a destroyed phylactery is possible?

The phylactery contains an actual, literal soul. To "make another" would mean to also make another soul, or split yours. There may be weird epic psionic ways to do so, but cloning souls is completely impossible for arcane and divine magic.


Anyway, as someone said before, if Xykon really could make multiple phylacteries, he'd be at the next gate by now.

[Ancalagon]

The phylactery contains an actual, literal soul.

No, it does not. It contains the soul once the body is destroyed until a new body has formed.

[Conuly]

SoD Spoiler:

Xykon told RC outright that his soul is only in his phylactery once he dies, and that if it's destroyed before his body is he can just make another one, no big deal.

If you want to go there, you can assume that he was bluffing RC, or was at that time really just that ignorant about how the whole thing works - but there's no evidence to show that that statement isn't actually true in the OotS world.

[Ancalagon]

SoD Spoiler:

It's not actually SoD-specific, this is how it works.

The question is simply if a Lich can make a new phylactery or not. That is unclear by the rules and is left to the DM to decide.

As for OotS: I doubt Xykon knows and I am very sure he does not want to find out.

[SaintRidley]

Not into D&D but I had a thought here:

If a lich can't make a new phylactery because it can ONLY be made when he becomes a lich, then maybe there's a work around for that:

1. A lich loses his soul hidey place and needs another.

2. A phylactery can only be made with a lich as he's being made into a lich.

3. A lich is an undead creature, so he uses powerful magic to essentially resurrect himself as a living person, then goes thru the lichification process again and makes a new phylactery in the process.

So maybe it's a kludge, but it might work if a lich can be resurrected as a live person again.

Given his soul is in his body, plus the whole being an undead creature thing, he would need to destroy himself first. Then get someone to cast Resurrection or True Resurrection on his corpse.

[Conuly]

It's not actually SoD-specific, this is how it works.

No, but the specific context of why it even came up might be.

[SinsI]

Yes, he can, but he'd have to be destroyed first, True Resurrected and transformed into a lich all over again. Not really sure it is worth the risk - Liches are evil, so their companions are usually not the most trustworthy...

[ZerglingOne]

I've never played D&D really, so pardon me if this is a dumb question, but it's not covered by the D20 SRD. If a lich's phylactery is destroyed, while the lich is not in it, can the phylactery be recreated? Are they replaceable? Or is it a one time thing, and once it's gone it's gone?

I ask because
In SOD, Xykon casually brushes off Redcloak's threat to destroy the phylactery. Obviously that wouldn't harm him overmuch if he weren't in it, but if they're unique losing it would still make him more vulnerable.

A standard lich has only one phylactery at any given time and I believe it's been stated above me that under some written rules, they are only ever allowed one phylactery and if it's destroyed, it's gone for good. However, an epic lich can choose to become a demilich which can have multiple phylacteries along with a set of extremely deadly special abilities.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yes, he can, but he'd have to be destroyed first, True Resurrected and transformed into a lich all over again. Not really sure it is worth the risk - Liches are evil, so their companions are usually not the most trustworthy...
Ironically, I'm sure tsukiko would have been happy to have faithfully served her dear xykon in every way.

[shadowkiller]

Ironically, I'm sure tsukiko would have been happy to have faithfully served her dear xykon in every way.

I read that in Dr. Strangelove's voice and it was hilarious.


Now back to the topic, epic spellcasters have so many ways to break a game that making a new phylactery is trivial.

[shadowkiller]

Ironically, I'm sure tsukiko would have been happy to have faithfully served her dear xykon in every way.

I read that in Dr. Strangelove's voice and it was hilarious.


Now back to the topic, epic spellcasters have so many ways to break a game that making a new phylactery is trivial.

[valce]

More importantly than that, would Rich really copy Harry Potter by having the Big Bad make a bunch of soul-hidey places instead of just one?

Harry Potter, while well-presented and certainly advertised, didn't contain anything really new in terms of plot devices or lore. I wouldn't accuse the Giant of 'copying' Harry Potter (has he even read it?)

[Dr. Strangelove]

I read that in Dr. Strangelove's voice and it was hilarious.


.

Ach, vould it help iv I vere to write it in ze dokton ztrangelove voice zen, mein herr?

[Ancalagon]

D&D and phylacterys (very probably even multiple) in that system are older than Harry Potter.

And Soul Hidey Places are older than D&D.

[SoC175]

A standard lich has only one phylactery at any given time and I believe it's been stated above me that under some written rules, they are only ever allowed one phylactery and if it's destroyed, it's gone for good. However, an epic lich can choose to become a demilich which can have multiple phylacteries along with a set of extremely deadly special abilities.Actually a standard lich able to cast a certain epic level spell can even have multiple phylacteries without having to become a demilich

[biggeno88]

Actually, it is quite possible to create more then one phylactery. Though in doing so the lich ascends to the rank of demilich, and a demilich can have eight phylacteries that hold a portion of their soul in each. But since they wouldn't be a lich anymore the point is kind of moot. (See Demilich Template, Epic Level Handbook).

[Issabella]

One of the Liches in Forgotten realms (name escapes me) had an epic spell to fragment his phallactery, at the count he had 50+ scattered about.