So.....My Druid Just Turned Himself into a Lich

[KOVAV]

.....and I am a bit, er.....confused. SO, how is this going to affect me, bassically? I kinda did it without thinking of mechanics......so, have I screwed up my self by doing it?

[Cranthis]

First, how?

[Gavinfoxx]

destroy your phylactery and get a true ressurection. Or reincarnate/ last breath.

[KOVAV]

with 120k gold, a dark ritual, and 4400 xp. so, I'm a godmamn lich, lol. I asked the GM and he said what the hell, and let me do it.

[LTwerewolf]

It's in the monster manual and it describes exactly what you get. It may cause you to be a bit more fragile (you lose your con), but nets you a few special abilities. You DO get damage reduction (15/this will almost never be beaten) and gain turn resistance. You get additional ability scores and a few skills. The issue here is that you're netting a new level adjustment of +4. Hide your phylactery. I hope your druid was evil, because he certainly is now.

[KOVAV]

destroy your phylactery and get a true ressurection. Or reincarnate/ last breath.
Is it Really that bad?

[The-Mage-King]

Absolutely not, by RAW.


Undead can be Druids. Fluff it as being in-tune with the cycle of life and death, and realizing that you'd be better as a balancing agent if you were outside it, or something.

[LTwerewolf]

Is it Really that bad?

Yep. You just lost a ton (a ton now equals 4) of caster levels for a few marginal immunities and buffs.

[Cranthis]

Undead can be Druids. Fluff it as being in-tune with the cycle of life and death, and realizing that you'd be better as a balancing agent if you were outside it, or something.

Go with this. Liches can be good.

[LTwerewolf]

Go with this. Liches can be good.

Negative.

The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character. A lich retains all class abilities it had in life.

Via the MM1 and SRD.

You can read about it here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm).

[Cranthis]

Becoming one is evil yes. But you can still be neutral.

[LTwerewolf]

Becoming one is evil yes. But you can still be neutral.

Neutral evil.

[Cranthis]

Nope, being neutral, you can do what you want. Good or evil.

[The-Mage-King]

Negative.

Negative to your negative. Baelnorn (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons/Monsters/baelnorn) would like a word, though they're Forgotten Realms based, and just because they have to commit one evil act (which is likely willingly becoming an intelligent undead), doesn't mean the lich is Evil.


Also, Libris Mortis, page 156. Good Lich variant.


Liches can be Good. Deal.

[Arcanist]

Nope, being neutral, you can do what you want. Good or evil.

*facepalm* Alright...

Unless your campaign is going into epic and take years between sessions (where age actually means something) then there is no reason to become a Lich or other kind of Undead with a high LA (and even then, there is still the option of becoming an Elder Brain Lich :smallbiggrin:)...


I recommend just talking to your DM about it all and asking if you can redact the whole Lichdom thing

[WarKitty]

IIRC, whether liches have to be evil depends on which RAW you're reading.

But yes - for most campaigns this means a lot of lost caster levels for not a huge benefit.

[Saintheart]

Basically, you just made yourself vulnerable to positive energy damage, or indeed any cleric who's carrying around the Light of Lunia/Mercuria/Venya spells. Healing Belts can now hurt you, as can thrown Potions of Cure Light Wounds or indeed Wands of CLW. You can be turned if the cleric is strong enough. Never mind, at least you didn't become a Blighter first.

[Arcanist]

Never mind, at least you didn't become a Blighter first.

That actually wouldn't be to bad of a thing exactly since he still manages to obtain 9th level spells :smalltongue:

[Mystral]

From a pure roleplaying point, one of the biggest crimes against nature is to act against the circle of life and death.

In my opinion, you should fall so hard it would make a dent visible from space.

As your DM seems to be cool with that druid lich thing, maybe that works a bit different from your game, but yeah, you gimped yourself pretty hard. Most liekly you would lose most or all of your lich buffs (meagre as they are) when turning in an animal, too.

[KOVAV]

well, thanks all, after weighing the advantages and disadvantagtes, I have come the conclusion that I am tottally, and rightfully screwed..but, I think my dm will forgive my lapse of judgement, especailly, since after looking at savage species, you cant even BECOME a lich without eleven levels in sorcerer, wizards, or cleric....so, as a pure druid, I should not have even been ABLE to make that mistake.....plus, I, if I ever get very old, I can just contingancy spell last breath off myself.

[Arcanist]

Especially, since after looking at savage species, you cant even BECOME a lich without eleven levels in sorcerer, wizards, or cleric....so, as a pure druid, I should not have even been ABLE to make that mistake

Smack your DM and told him Vecna sent me :smallcool: you don't need to be a Wizard a Sorcerer or a Cleric to be a Lich, All you need is to have a caster level that is 11th level or higher which any straight spellcasting class can accomplish :smallcool:

[lianightdemon]

Shhh he found his out leave it be. And if you want to fix the aging problem get a contingency reincarnate and then you get a younger body the next time you die.

[Analytica]

Go with it. Consider the Pathfinder Blight Druid archetype:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo---druid-archetypes/blight-druid

Work over with your DM how this fits with your druid's faith. I recommend looking at the Slaine comic, particularly "Lord Weird Slough Feg", leader of the evil druids or "drunes" for a celtic/mythic take on death and even undeath as part of some sort of natural cycle:

http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/7/5a98edcc736957c067b4330c001f015c/l.jpg

Discuss with your DM what your new level adjustment means. You might not lose caster levels as such, but you might level slower than your fellow party members. This needs not be such a bad thing.

You are now immortal - if you die, you will respawn back at your phylactery. Make use of this, sacrifice yourself again and again for your party when there is no better way out.

You are now evil, alignment-wise. Only you yourself can say what this means for your character, I am sure somewhere between Dexter Morgan and Sauron you can find a suitable interpretation.

[HunterOfJello]

Unfortunately, you may have just lost the ability to Wild Shape.


Wild Shape originally functioned off of the Polymorph spell and only worked on Living Creatures (as per the spell). Libris Mortis offers a feat called Corrupted Wild Shape which allows Undead to Wild Shape even though they aren't living. HOWEVER, Libris Mortis was 3e and Wild Shape was later changed to work like Alternate Form [Su].

I don't know if Alternate Form is limited to only living creatures for any reason. I don't think it is. Input from others and consultation with your DM may help alleviate this (possible) problem.

[Alleran]

Negative.

The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character. A lich retains all class abilities it had in life.

Via the MM1 and SRD.

You can read about it here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm).
You know, weirdly, if it does explicitly state that a lich retains all class abilities it had in life, then even though the creation process is evil, what does that mean for a paladin who undergoes it? If he retains all class abilities he had in life, does he not get to keep his paladin powers despite being a lich? Or would he first lose the abilities with the process, then become a lich and thus only retain the "fallen" aspect rather than all the other abilities?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Negative.

The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character. A lich retains all class abilities it had in life.

Via the MM1 and SRD.

You can read about it here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm).
Your quote doesn't mean what you think it does. Becoming a lich is an undeniably evil act, by RAW, but committing one evil act, no matter how unspeakable, doesn't necessarily make you evil. Moreover, "always <alignment>" doesn't actually mean always in this context. Check your MM's glossary under alignment. Always means born that way or with a strong tendency toward that alignment, but you're not actually locked in on it. Any sapient creature can be whatever alignment he chooses. Some sapeint creatures just have a harder time with attaining some alignments than others.

You know, weirdly, if it does explicitly state that a lich retains all class abilities it had in life, then even though the creation process is evil, what does that mean for a paladin who undergoes it? If he retains all class abilities he had in life, does he not get to keep his paladin powers despite being a lich? Or would he first lose the abilities with the process, then become a lich and thus only retain the "fallen" aspect rather than all the other abilities?

Becoming a lich is an evil act, and atonement requires genuine repentance. You can't be a lich paladin, even if you do somehow manage to meet the requirements.

[danzibr]

Libris Mortis was 3e
??? filler filler

[Ardantis]

Let's not forget that this is a COMPLETELY AWESOME in-game issue to be dealing with.

Sometimes, in-game power is worth sacrificing for the sake of memorably amazing things happening. This character is interesting, and his adventures will be interesting, too. I wonder how his party will respond?

[Voyd211]

I still think it's bull that a lich 100% has to be evil. Unless the lich stops being sapient, there really isn't any reason for it to be unable to choose its alignment.

But that's just my opinion. Other folks might think differently.

[Alleran]

Becoming a lich is an evil act, and atonement requires genuine repentance. You can't be a lich paladin, even if you do somehow manage to meet the requirements.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying atone. I'm wondering how the "retains all class abilities" functions in concert with the paladin's class features, the latter of which includes a function for how to lose them. So if you can lose them, but a lich explicitly retains all class abilities it had in life (which by default includes any paladin abilities). It just seems like weird wording.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You misunderstand. I'm not saying atone. I'm wondering how the "retains all class abilities" functions in concert with the paladin's class features, the latter of which includes a function for how to lose them. So if you can lose them, but a lich explicitly retains all class abilities it had in life (which by default includes any paladin abilities). It just seems like weird wording.

Oh.

In that case what you have is, by RAW, a lich ex-paladin. He retains his armor and weapon proficiencies, skill-points and class skills, BAB, etc. Having violated his CoC, rather grossly at that, his loss of the special mount, spellcasting, divine grace, divine health, etc, has nothing to do with actually applying the lich template.

Make more sense now?

Edit: oddly, if he can sell the idea to his superiors and the DM's okay with it, a gray-guard actually could become a lich. It's a bit of a long-shot though.

[Silma]

I believe a paladin would lose all his paladin levels (thus turning into a fighter of equal level) the moment he decides to become a lich. So after becoming a lich he still retains all his abilities as a figter.

[Analytica]

I believe a paladin would lose all his paladin levels (thus turning into a fighter of equal level) the moment he decides to become a lich. So after becoming a lich he still retains all his abilities as a figter.

You don't become a Fighter, you become an ex-Paladin, AKA Fighter without bonus feats. See the "Ex-Paladins" section in the Paladin class. However, much better would be to make use of the Blackguard's option to trade in Paladin levels for Blackguard levels - mostly the same thing only your cloak is now black. :smallsmile:

[Kelb_Panthera]

I believe a paladin would lose all his paladin levels (thus turning into a fighter of equal level) the moment he decides to become a lich. So after becoming a lich he still retains all his abilities as a figter.

That's certainly a way to phrase it. More acurately though, it'd be warrior rather than fighter.

Mechanically speaking, he's still an ex-paladin. Allowing him to retrain all his paladin levels to fighter levels would be a very generous houserule.

Edit: Ack! bloody ninjas!

[Daefos]

The way I've always fluffed it, just being a lich is not unspeakably evil, and good lichs are, if almost non-existent, at least theoretically possible. The problem is, there are two major obstacles to this:

Even if being a lich is not itself evil, becoming a lich is going to drop your alignment down as far as it can go. It's a good thing you're immortal now pal, because you're going to be needing a lot of time if you want to make up for this.
The kind of person who would so completely undermine the natural order of life and death, debase themselves so thoroughly, and commit such unspeakable atrocities all in the name of personal power is probably not a very nice person to begin with.

[LTwerewolf]

The way I've always fluffed it, just being a lich is not unspeakably evil, and good lichs are, if almost non-existent, at least theoretically possible. The problem is, there are two major obstacles to this:

Even if being a lich is not itself evil, becoming a lich is going to drop your alignment down as far as it can go. It's a good thing you're immortal now pal, because you're going to be needing a lot of time if you want to make up for this.
The kind of person who would so completely undermine the natural order of life and death, debase themselves so thoroughly, and commit such unspeakable atrocities all in the name of personal power is probably not a very nice person to begin with.


This is pretty much what I read the rules as. As far as the "one act does not necessarily make you evil" I would have to disagree. "I may have killed every innocent soul on the planet, but I only did it once with one spell, so I'm not evil" doesn't really fly. Same concept with becoming a lich.

[Voyd211]

One can commit an evil act for a greater good. Take a look at Redcloak.

Characters like that are of the mindset that it's acceptable if the good part of the equation outweighs it. So, I think that a lich paladin might actually be more devoted to being a good person than a normal human one.

Also, I've never seen anything outside of Harry Potter that says Soul Jar = act of evil. As far as I know, it's just good-bye to a lot of money and stuffing your soul in a box. I can actually see that as being used for a good purpose, as an eternal protector of sorts. A guardian that can never be truly destroyed.

That actually sounds kind of awesome.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is pretty much what I read the rules as. As far as the "one act does not necessarily make you evil" I would have to disagree. "I may have killed every innocent soul on the planet, but I only did it once with one spell, so I'm not evil" doesn't really fly. Same concept with becoming a lich.

Same thing? Not even close. You're completely ignoring the matter of scope.

Since the ritual that creates a lich doesn't actually spell out what the unspeakably evil act(s) required is, it's utterly absurd to put it on the same level as genocide.

Regardless of whether you think becoming a lich is evil enough for an alignment change in and of itself (a subjective point that's not worth arguing about) RAW is very clear on the matter of a lich having to remain evil; he doesn't unless he wants to.

It may take 1 or 10 or 100 lifetimes to properly atone through good deeds (ask your DM) but, being an immortal creature, if the lich in question is willing to put forth that effort, he can indeed get his alignment to good.

You are, of course, free to change this in your game, but that's a houserule.

[Gavinfoxx]

Is it Really that bad?

Yes, yes it is. You get a huge LA, completely eviscerate your capability of being a good caster for several levels to come, and you probably fell from being a Druid due to the insane crime against nature that becoming a Lich entails. AND you might lose Wild Shape. So, yea. It is that bad.

[Zubrowka74]

In the Ravenloft setting there was an NPC "bardic lich" that had a NG alignment. I read that in a 2e book, don't know if it made it to 3.X

But again, it's Ravenloft, with all sorts of ways around many rules, vampiric elves, blood elementals, etc...

[Axier]

I say fluff the druid lich as a lich, who is animate because of symbiotic plant life that consumed him and became him. The plant, which is immortal, is now you. And you have some vines and leaves growing out of your skeletal carcass.

As for liches having to be evil, what is to stop a lich from becoming good. There is no ex-Lich section, so theoretically you could become a lich, and then devote your unlife to goodness and justice.

All you have to do is perform an unspeakable act...

How about you do something really nasty to demons? Something just plain twisted to even good creatures? That way, you are only harming more evil, not an innocent soul.

Also, you could go the challenging way, and make a deal with one of the devils, break your oath once you have enough information, and then lead the armies of divine justice right to their doorstep. You could make an entire campagin about it!

[Voyd211]

I still don't know why the creation of the phylactery is automatically an evil act. Does the procedure vary from DM to DM?

[Jeraa]

I still don't know why the creation of the phylactery is automatically an evil act. Does the procedure vary from DM to DM?

Because it specifically says that becoming a lich is unspeakably evil. It just never says why it is evil, or what is done.


The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character. A lich retains all class abilities it had in life.

[ericgrau]

Yep. You just lost a ton (a ton now equals 4) of caster levels for a few marginal tremendous immunities and buffs.
FTFY. 4 caster levels is still a lot to lose but the major resistances are major. It's not the end of the world. Especially for someone who likes to wildshape and melee. With DR 15/unlikely, bonus natural weapon damage, chance of undispellable permanent paralysis 1/round, and a grocery list of undead immunities on top of lich immunities I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before.

The process of becoming a lich isn't just evil, it's unspeakably evil. He's evil. Neutral people can't do it any more than a murderer can kill "only once" and overall be an okay guy, nor "only murder half the time". Not without a thousand acts of atonement and not while casually repeating such acts like people are suggesting. He's gone off the deep end.

It would be nice to fluff out the process. Maybe he trapped the souls of a dozen virgin maidens after drinking their blood, or who knows what.

I never knew undead were particularly anti druid. I suppose they're unnatural, but so is staying at a tavern. As long as he still protects wilderness life. Is there some rule I'm missing?

[hamishspence]

Champions of Ruin has a druid lich- who retains his spellcasting, so, however much undead are "against nature" you're got precedent for retaining your druid powers.

[LTwerewolf]

FTFY. 4 caster levels is still a lot to lose but the major resistances are major. It's not the end of the world. Especially for someone who likes to wildshape and melee. With DR 15/unlikely, bonus natural weapon damage, chance of undispellable permanent paralysis 1/round, and a grocery list of undead immunities on top of lich immunities I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before.

The process of becoming a lich isn't just evil, it's unspeakably evil. He's evil. Neutral people can't do it any more than a murderer can kill "only once" and overall be an okay guy, nor "only murder half the time". Not without a thousand acts of atonement and not while casually repeating such acts like people are suggesting. He's gone off the deep end.

It would be nice to fluff out the process. Maybe he trapped the souls of a dozen virgin maidens after drinking their blood, or who knows what.

I never knew undead were particularly anti druid. I suppose they're unnatural, but so is staying at a tavern. As long as he still protects wilderness life. Is there some rule I'm missing?


You say they're tremendous, but there's little there that can't be replicated by a spell they would have gotten from those caster levels. He's missing out on two entire spell levels.

[Gavinfoxx]

Undead are animated by negative energy, which is anathema to life and the natural world...

[ericgrau]

You say they're tremendous, but there's little there that can't be replicated by a spell they would have gotten from those caster levels. He's missing out on two entire spell levels.

AFAIK most cannot be replicated 24 hours and/or as a non-action. Unless there's some splatbook trick I'm missing. I know some vaguely similar options but they don't even come close. A standard action to temporarily gain some benefit or cause some effect isn't even in the same ballpark as having it up all the time and keeping all your regular attacks. Quickened permanent hold monster is > 9th level and isn't even on the druid list, for one out of a half dozen nice things. I did notice that energy immunity is 24 hours but that's the least of the abilities.

[Zombulian]

Become a Blighter. SCREW NATURE. SET IT ON FIRE.

[Jeraa]

Become a Blighter. SCREW NATURE. SET IT ON FIRE.

Forest fires are totally natural, and even benefit nature. (Clearing away thick undergrowth, allowing new plants to grow as well as returning nutrients to the soil.

Nothing says a normal druid has to be a tree-hugging, bunny petting hippy. Burning down (some) forests and wolves killing fluffy bunnies are perfectly natural, and suitable things for a druid to (sometimes) do.

An undead druid just represents all the darker things in nature. as opposed to the cute fluffy things.

[Zombulian]

Forest fires are totally natural, and even benefit nature. (Clearing away thick undergrowth, allowing new plants to grow as well as returning nutrients to the soil.

Nothing says a normal druid has to be a tree-hugging, bunny petting hippy. Burning down (some) forests and wolves killing fluffy bunnies are perfectly natural, and suitable things for a druid to (sometimes) do.

An undead druid just represents all the darker things in nature. as opposed to the cute fluffy things.

And Blighter gets Undead Wildshape. I don't know if Blighter necessarily says Blighters need to hate nature, they can easily just be the embodiment of the plights of nature.

[Terumitsu]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Deathless from Eberron yet. Basically, that's just undead but with positive energy and apparently good for some reason?

But yeah, this means that one could become a kind of positive energy lich or something. It's not specifically stated but it sure as hell leads one to think it could happen given how the undying are... Well, positive energy liches.

I think the whole 'Evil/Not Evil' thing is due to the stupid alignment things they tried to tack on to the Positive and Negitive energy planes and such. So, yeah.. He doesn't HAVE to be evil if he doesn't want to. PCs are the exception to the rules and all or at least they should be. And, of course, Table trumps Text.

[Zubrowka74]

And Blighter gets Undead Wildshape. I don't know if Blighter necessarily says Blighters need to hate nature, they can easily just be the embodiment of the plights of nature.

I thought that Blighters were for nature, against civilization. Nature's avengers, sort of. They destroy crops and such.

[Zombulian]

I thought that Blighters were for nature, against civilization. Nature's avengers, sort of. They destroy crops and such.

Nah, they get Ex-druid levels and stuff and gain spells by setting forests on fire.

[Jeraa]

I thought that Blighters were for nature, against civilization. Nature's avengers, sort of. They destroy crops and such.

Crops are never mentioned in the Blighter class. Destroying forests, and killing a dryads home tree are.

Its entirely possible to play a Blighter like that, only targeting the areas of civilization with his ability. But as written, the Blighter just cares about destroying the earth, no matter where it is.


When a druid turns away from the land, the land turns away from her. Some ex-druids make peace with this change; others seek to restore the bond. A few, however, actually embrace their disconnection from nature and become forces of destruction. These few, called blighters, bring desolation wherever they tread.


The vast majority of blighters are nomadic loners constantly in search of green lands to destroy.

[Balmas]

You misunderstand. I'm not saying atone. I'm wondering how the "retains all class abilities" functions in concert with the paladin's class features, the latter of which includes a function for how to lose them. So if you can lose them, but a lich explicitly retains all class abilities it had in life (which by default includes any paladin abilities). It just seems like weird wording.

If I recall correctly, a paladin falls if he uses poison, disrespects authority, uses poison, or knowingly performs an evil act. That last one is the important one. As soon as he performed that evil act of becoming a paladin, he'd fall and become an ex-paladin. Even if he stayed lawful good, he'd still have to atone for his actions.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If I recall correctly, a paladin falls if he uses poison, disrespects authority, uses poison, or knowingly performs an evil act. That last one is the important one. As soon as he performed that evil act of becoming a paladin, he'd fall and become an ex-paladin. Even if he stayed lawful good, he'd still have to atone for his actions.

This is inaccurate. A paladin falls if he ever willingly commits an evil act, or if he ever grossly violates his code of conduct, which includes; respecting (but not necessarily obeying) legitamate authority, acting with honor (which is an entirely subjective matter between the paladin's player and GM), helping those in need, and punishing those who harm or threaten innocents.

Do note that the Associates section of the paladin entry is SEPERATE from the code of conduct entry. A paladin can associate with whom he pleases without falling, but he's expected to be dissapproving of evil characters and only associate with them if they're trying to turn good. There is no mechanical ramification for traveling or fighting alongside evil party members.

[ArcanaGuy]

You don't snap your fingers and become a lich. It's not 'one evil act'. The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil. Not just evil. Not just one evil act. It requires you to do horrific things. It probably involves the slaying of innocents in order to use their souls to fuel the fires of your eternal life, and it rends your soul by the horrific energies involved. (think Voldemort, folks. He had to slay no less than seven innocent beings for his lichhood.) The book doesn't describe exactly what these things are, but it gives you what you need to know - it's unspeakably evil. You're serving the powers of Evil in order to get it done.

The Paladin trying to do this turns evil far before he becomes a Lich. Just *starting* down the road towards Lichdom makes you evil. Your Paladin lost his class abilities well before he became a Lich.

True Neutral does NOT mean you do whatever you want and you're good. If you show such a tremendous and horrifically twisted soul that you go Lichdom for your path towards eternal life ... you're evil.

Now, a druid *can* be neutral evil - but he's gonna be neutral evil. He so twisted and stained his soul that he's stuck that way - the process of redemption for a lich involves *not being a lich anymore* ... and should be fairly epic besides.

[Cranthis]

By very definition of True neutral, it doesn't matter. You can do what you want, including the slaying of the innocent if you want.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You don't snap your fingers and become a lich. It's not 'one evil act'. The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil. Not just evil. Not just one evil act. It requires you to do horrific things. It probably involves the slaying of innocents in order to use their souls to fuel the fires of your eternal life, and it rends your soul by the horrific energies involved. (think Voldemort, folks. He had to slay no less than seven innocent beings for his lichhood.) The book doesn't describe exactly what these things are, but it gives you what you need to know - it's unspeakably evil. You're serving the powers of Evil in order to get it done.

The Paladin trying to do this turns evil far before he becomes a Lich. Just *starting* down the road towards Lichdom makes you evil. Your Paladin lost his class abilities well before he became a Lich.

True Neutral does NOT mean you do whatever you want and you're good. If you show such a tremendous and horrifically twisted soul that you go Lichdom for your path towards eternal life ... you're evil.

Now, a druid *can* be neutral evil - but he's gonna be neutral evil. He so twisted and stained his soul that he's stuck that way - the process of redemption for a lich involves *not being a lich anymore* ... and should be fairly epic besides.

I really couldn't care less how the Harry Potter villian got his unlife on. He's not a D&D lich.

The process for becoming a lich is called out as being unspeakably evil. That's it.

If that's one unspeakably evil act or a series of evil acts that add up to unspeakable evil is entirely within the DM's purview. There is no detail provided anywhere to support either of those suppositions over the other.

Clearly you don't think that a lich should be anything but evil, and if that's how you want to play it in your game that's fine. That's not the only valid interpretation of the matter though. Just as you posit that it may take the consumption of several innocent lives to succesfully become a lich, I posit that doing so destroys your own soul. You create a psychic impression contained within the phylactery and that impression is pressed into the undead flesh after each regeneration.

You see? Both interpretations require unspeakable evil (A mass murder for one, the destruction of a soul for the other) but mine's a single act while yours is several. Both are equally valid because of the vagueness of RAW.

For the record, that's not how I think liches actually work, I was making a point.

[TuggyNE]

The way I've always fluffed it, just being a lich is not unspeakably evil, and good lichs are, if almost non-existent, at least theoretically possible. The problem is, there are two major obstacles to this:

Even if being a lich is not itself evil, becoming a lich is going to drop your alignment down as far as it can go. It's a good thing you're immortal now pal, because you're going to be needing a lot of time if you want to make up for this.
The kind of person who would so completely undermine the natural order of life and death, debase themselves so thoroughly, and commit such unspeakable atrocities all in the name of personal power is probably not a very nice person to begin with.


Essentially, it's this. Add one part "undeath makes you nearly static", stir.


One can commit an evil act for a greater good. Take a look at Redcloak.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Redcloak pings as evil, no?

(I sadly don't have access to the books, so I can't tell if you're referring to some transitional point at which Redcloak was neutral or good despite having just performed some evil act.)

[Augmental]

Not a problem. Just walk over to Minoc and give the beggar there 200 gold coins. It'll cancel out all the horrific deeds you committed and turn you back into the saintliest of saints.

...What? It works in Ultima 5! :smalltongue: (http://www.it-he.org/lazarus.htm)

[Psyren]

In the strictest sense, non-evil liches are possible. They are variants, but possible. And if the DM is okay with it then all this wrangling over morality is moot.

As far as losing class features, even if you became evil, as long as you stay NE you should be fine.

[ArcanaGuy]

I really couldn't care less how the Harry Potter villian got his unlife on. He's not a D&D lich.

A-derb. It's an example for the purposes of getting the idea across, not proposed as something which follows D&D rules.


The process for becoming a lich is called out as being unspeakably evil. That's it.

If that's one unspeakably evil act or a series of evil acts that add up to unspeakable evil is entirely within the DM's purview. There is no detail provided anywhere to support either of those suppositions over the other.

Um ... what? I'm sorry, I didn't follow that, could you illustrate the difference for me, there?


Clearly you don't think that a lich should be anything but evil, and if that's how you want to play it in your game that's fine. That's not the only valid interpretation of the matter though.

Uhhh, no, Actually, that is the only valid interpretation of the rules for a newly minted lich. Now, you wanna talk about a one-thousand year old lich who's long since repented in his evil ways and just wants a way out of whatever nasty bargain he made with unreality in order to get his eternal life ... that's something else again, but that's also not within the context of this conversation.


Just as you posit that it may take the consumption of several innocent lives to succesfully become a lich, I posit that doing so destroys your own soul. You create a psychic impression contained within the phylactery and that impression is pressed into the undead flesh after each regeneration.

Ooo, that's a neat idea! I like it a lot!


You see? Both interpretations require unspeakable evil (A mass murder for one, the destruction of a soul for the other) but mine's a single act while yours is several. Both are equally valid because of the vagueness of RAW.

OK, first off, if it's a single act, it's not a *PROCESS*. And if it is a process, it's not a single act.

Secondly, yours isn't a single act, it's a series of acts. You're not just walking down the street being dudly doo-right with absolutely no intent to become a lich and then suddenly *ERP* change your mind and stab yourself in the proscribed manner to go lichy.

Also remember that *intent* and *attitude* is part of the whole 'good/evil' scale for D&D. For instance, the rules do not state 'killing people is evil'. The rules state that having a certain *attitude* towards people's lives is evil, whether or not you actually do killin'. You have a complete disregard for human life ... have never killed anyone or done anything wrong because you don't want to get caught and punished - and by the RAW, you're still evil!

The rule state that this is a process of unspeakable evil. By this, you can determine not only that the acts involved are pretty nasty ... but it requires a certain *attitude* building up to that. The mere process of *actively mentally preparing* to become a lich, even if no specific horrific acts have yet been performed, is enough to put you on the evil side of the scale.


For the record, that's not how I think liches actually work, I was making a point.

It's actually not how I think of it, either. My personal theory is that if you ask a hundred liches what the process is for becoming a lich, you'll get 101 different processes. All of them processes of unspeakable evil. Thus my Voldemort example - because hey, how many highly popular and broadly known examples of lichdom do *you* know of?

[Twilightwyrm]

That actually wouldn't be to bad of a thing exactly since he still manages to obtain 9th level spells :smalltongue:

Okay, this is starting to bug me. Why, please remind me, is it so vitally important to get 9th level spells? Especially as a Druid, when you can already get Wild Shape to mitigate the for loss of Shapechange (they have a feat that allows Undead to Wild Shape), you do not get access to Miracle anyways, and you already have many of your best spells, it completely puzzles me how not getting 9th level spells, or even delaying getting them, seems to be some sin against spell casting. (Ignoring for the moment that with LA buyoff, a druid lick CAN get 9th level spells) Yes they are good, but they are not so good that trading them for something else isn't an option. Okay, so maybe the game breaking potential is lessened, but unless this player was trying to break the game in the first case (which they would be well within their rights NOT to be), than why is that important? Especially when, I should remind you, the druid is also gaining: Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects, critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, energy drain, damage to its physical ability scores, as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects. You know, all that stuff normal spellcasters need to routinely waste spells to make themselves immune to. And that is just the undead benefits. As a lich, you getting destroyed is now generally a complete non-issue. So please, someone tell me why getting these Holy Grails of 9th level spells are as important as people seem to think they are, because clearly I'm missing something.

[KOVAV]

Hello all. a very, very interesting conversation has gone on, both philosophically and rulewise. Secondly, the main thing I loose 9th level spell wise is shapechange, which, although its fun, my DM would be pissed off anyway if I actuelly tried to use it as my main combat power. Well....for some reason, it appears that my Dungeon master is extremely leniant towards undead cheese as opposed to normal cheese, because he told me today that he likes the idea of a Celtic Mythos inspired undead character that he said he would waive the LA+4, and let me have wildeshape.....so besides the constant risk of becoming a clerics bitch, I think its a good thing now.

[Kelb_Panthera]

A-derb. It's an example for the purposes of getting the idea across, not proposed as something which follows D&D rules. I'm not familiar with the term "A-derb." I'll presume it's not an expletive leveled in my general direction. Even if the Harry Potter folks call him such, voldemort isn't a lich. He's something similar, but he's not the critter in the MM. If you want an example of a lich try, I think it was, Fzoul of zhentil keep, one of the heads of the zhentarim organization.




Um ... what? I'm sorry, I didn't follow that, could you illustrate the difference for me, there? I already did. you dismissed it as being invalid. I'll get to that in a sec.




Uhhh, no, Actually, that is the only valid interpretation of the rules for a newly minted lich. Now, you wanna talk about a one-thousand year old lich who's long since repented in his evil ways and just wants a way out of whatever nasty bargain he made with unreality in order to get his eternal life ... that's something else again, but that's also not within the context of this conversation. That may not be the context you intended for this conversation, but nothing that's been said before now suggests that we were only to be discussing newly created liches. Again, that's your interpretation. Becoming a lich requires undergoing some unspeakably evil process, but that process is never described and even good characters are capable of evil acts.




Ooo, that's a neat idea! I like it a lot! It's actually not one of my better pieces, but I'm glad you liked it anyway.




OK, first off, if it's a single act, it's not a *PROCESS*. And if it is a process, it's not a single act. This is just patently false. There are many processes that can be considered single acts; the creation of a knife for example. It's a process that has many steps, but in the end you're doing one thing; making a knife. You're trying to invalidate my perfectly reasonable point with mindless pedantry. If the above described process of destroying the soul and implanting the psychic imprint on the phylactery is accomplished by the casting of a single spell, that doesn't make it any less of a proccess or any more than a single act. The unspeakable evil may not even be in the destruction of a soul, but in the spell calling on a number of dark powers; evil gods, demon lords, etc. There are any number of ways to parce the "process" of becoming a lich as a single act of unspeakable evil, and any of them are just as valid as any multi-step process you'd care to describe.


Secondly, yours isn't a single act, it's a series of acts. You're not just walking down the street being dudly doo-right with absolutely no intent to become a lich and then suddenly *ERP* change your mind and stab yourself in the proscribed manner to go lichy. This is your interpretation. The RAW may not contradict it, but it doesn't support it either. Neither does the english language for that matter. Or basic psychology. An otherwise good person could easily be tricked into believing that becoming a lich would be a good thing. Ignorance would play a significant role in that decision, but it's entirely within the realm of possibility.


Also remember that *intent* and *attitude* is part of the whole 'good/evil' scale for D&D. For instance, the rules do not state 'killing people is evil'. The rules state that having a certain *attitude* towards people's lives is evil, whether or not you actually do killin'. You have a complete disregard for human life ... have never killed anyone or done anything wrong because you don't want to get caught and punished - and by the RAW, you're still evil! I can tell you haven't seen many of my posts before. I'm well aware of the RAW regarding alignment, and what you've outlined here is true, but that doesn't change the fact that good characters can commit evil acts just as evil characters can commit good acts, both with intent of commiting acts in-line with their current alignment. You're completely ignoring the possibilities of deception and ignorance.


The rule state that this is a process of unspeakable evil. By this, you can determine not only that the acts involved are pretty nasty ... but it requires a certain *attitude* building up to that. The mere process of *actively mentally preparing* to become a lich, even if no specific horrific acts have yet been performed, is enough to put you on the evil side of the scale. You can only tell by the RAW, that the actions involved in becoming a lich are evil. Attitude is irrelevant. I could easily come up with several examples of evil acts with good intent, good acts with evil intent, and with a bit of time, could cite examples of both in the media. You're focusing on that word "process" and making way more of it than it is.




It's actually not how I think of it, either. My personal theory is that if you ask a hundred liches what the process is for becoming a lich, you'll get 101 different processes. All of them processes of unspeakable evil. Thus my Voldemort example - because hey, how many highly popular and broadly known examples of lichdom do *you* know of?

Since we're focusing on specific words, how about the "the" in the lich's entry talking about the process. Quote: "The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil ...." The is a singular article. Therefore there is only one process for lichdom. Statements like this are what come from mindless pendantry.

As for voldemort as a popular example of lichdom, I never finished the series, but I'm certain he's not a lich. That may be what the author called him, but the creature she called a phoenix is nothing like the creature in MM2 either.

There are several FR novels with examples of liches in them and then there're also the baelnorns in the same setting. Try the spellfire trilogy, or the series detailing Elminster's life. They were both reasonably popular at one time and both contain examples of liches.


Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit of a D-bag here.

[ArcanaGuy]

Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit of a D-bag here.

You are. Do try to treat me with respect instead of contempt, and you'll come off as less of one.

Geeze, man ... did I pee in your cheerios or something? Why are you writing with such vitriol and insult?

I take your apology as *LESS* than sincere when it immediately follows insults like this:


Since we're focusing on specific words, how about the "the" in the lich's entry talking about the process. Quote: "The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil ...." The is a singular article. Therefore there is only one process for lichdom. Statements like this are what come from mindless pendantry.

You're right, that is mindless. One of the reasons you're wrong. Also, the word you're looking for is pedantry. A singular article in that instance and context doesn't mean that. A singular article can be used for words that mean a quantity. Thus you have sentences such as "The herd is full of black and white cows." You can also describe a multitude of things with a single descriptor using singular articles when making general statements. Thus a sentence like: "The process of becoming leader of a small country requires planning and sacrifice." This is not saying there is only one way of becoming leader of a small country - but it is saying that *all* ways of becoming leader of a small country requires planning and sacrifice.

Fortunately, I use intelligent knowledge.

Also, I was *just told* to be more pedantic to discuss RAW.


I'm not familiar with the term "A-derb." I'll presume it's not an expletive leveled in my general direction.

It means 'duh'.


That may not be the context you intended for this conversation, but nothing that's been said before now suggests that we were only to be discussing newly created liches.

We're ... talking about becoming a lich. Because someone said, "My player just became a lich." And people said, "That means he's evil." That's the conversation we're having. If you want to speak outside that conversation, that's your choice. But don't expect other people to have already gone outside that conversation, and take their words from your context instead of the context of the thread.


This is just patently false. There are many processes that can be considered single acts; the creation of a knife for example. It's a process that has many steps, but in the end you're doing one thing; making a knife.

That is not a single act. That is a single result. You do not have a single act that results in a knife. You have a series of actions that results in a knife.


You're trying to invalidate my perfectly reasonable point with mindless pedantry. If the above described process of destroying the soul and implanting the psychic imprint on the phylactery is accomplished by the casting of a single spell, that doesn't make it any less of a proccess or any more than a single act.

It's not valid.

You can't cast the spell without preparing the spell. Committing it in that mystic way. You can't prepare it without learning the spell. You have to gather the ingredients. You have to craft and prepare the phylactory, or have it crafted for you.

All of these involve actions of evil, because of your intent to commit evil, your disregard for the good things.


The unspeakable evil may not even be in the destruction of a soul, but in the spell calling on a number of dark powers; evil gods, demon lords, etc. There are any number of ways to parce the "process" of becoming a lich as a single act of unspeakable evil, and any of them are just as valid as any multi-step process you'd care to describe.

And none of these are a single act. I'm very, very curious to know exactly how you see 'an act'. You swing a stick once - that's an act. You swing it twice, that's two acts. You start doing something, you stop. There's a definitive break in the flow of movement. While you can have several actions 'flow into each other', making a nice flow of movement between actions, or while you can have a slow, drawn out act ... acts are generally speaking quick and decisive. With the knife, you have a whole lot of hammer blows, you have to hit the anvil a couple times for every blow to the metal, to bleed off heat. You need to quench the knife. You need to heat the knife. You need to stoke the forge. There's a whole lot of acts involved.

This isn't a theatrical act. We're not talking about being on stage.


This is your interpretation. The RAW may not contradict it, but it doesn't support it either. Neither does the english language for that matter. Or basic psychology. An otherwise good person could easily be tricked into believing that becoming a lich would be a good thing. Ignorance would play a significant role in that decision, but it's entirely within the realm of possibility.

They could not perform 'unspeakably evil' acts without realizing what they were doing. The process of corruption would turn that good, innocent soul evil, as they slowly grew to decide that an UNSPEAKABLY EVIL act was acceptable for them to perform.


I can tell you haven't seen many of my posts before. I'm well aware of the RAW regarding alignment, and what you've outlined here is true, but that doesn't change the fact that good characters can commit evil acts just as evil characters can commit good acts, both with intent of commiting acts in-line with their current alignment. You're completely ignoring the possibilities of deception and ignorance.

Oh, not at all. Good people can commit evil acts, and vice versa. But you're forgetting the scope here. This involves UNSPEAKABLY EVIL acts. Not something you mistake for anything else. The *scale* of this is beyond those normal levels of mistake or grey morality. This is UNSPEAKABLY EVIL.

(by the way, the key phrase here is 'unspeakably evil'.)


You can only tell by the RAW, that the actions involved in becoming a lich are evil.

Uhhh... no. See, there's your problem. The RAW does not state that the actions involved in becoming a lich are evil. The RAW states that the process of becoming a lich is UNSPEAKABLY evil. That's rather an important aspect, there.


You're focusing on that word "process" and making way more of it than it is.

Don't forget the word UNSPEAKABLY.


As for voldemort as a popular example of lichdom, I never finished the series, but I'm certain he's not a lich. That may be what the author called him, but the creature she called a phoenix is nothing like the creature in MM2 either.

Um ... no, she really didn't. I did. He's an undead creature who stores his soul in another object (7, actually) so that he cannot be fully killed, and if his body is destroyed, the objects storing his soul keep him alive so that he can create a new body. It's born from the exact same mythic seeds that birthed the lich.

And your other examples are not really broadly recognized and known as well as Voldemort. I do love the Spellfire trilogy, especially the first book, which I've read many times, and I enjoyed the Elminster series, too, though it seemed a bit hurried and I wished it would settle on periods of his life in a bit more detail. And yet, I really wouldn't recognize the name of the liches from those books if you said them to me. they weren't nearly so memorable as Voldemort, and the readership wasn't even close to the readership of Harry Potter. *You* didn't read Harry Potter. I'm pretty sure you could put the readership of every book in the Forgotten Realms series together, and the combined readership would not come close to the readership of the Harry Potter series.

(which, by the way, it's just plain stupid to say, "I didn't read the part where it details the elements of how Voldemort is an undead creature who stores his soul in another object, but I'm sure you're saying it cause somewhere in there, the book calls him a lich ... but I know he's not a lich." You should not make absolute statements of knowledge about things you admit you never read. )

And frankly ... those books you mention didn't follow the D&D rules either ... though D&D rules have since been created to attempt to better mirror the books. And they don't *describe* the creation of a lich. The Harry Potter series *does*. Thus making it a better example.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You are. Do try to treat me with respect instead of contempt, and you'll come off as less of one.

Geeze, man ... did I pee in your cheerios or something? Why are you writing with such vitriol and insult?

I take your apology as *LESS* than sincere when it immediately follows insults like this:



You're right, that is mindless. One of the reasons you're wrong. Also, the word you're looking for is pedantry. A singular article in that instance and context doesn't mean that. A singular article can be used for words that mean a quantity. Thus you have sentences such as "The herd is full of black and white cows." You can also describe a multitude of things with a single descriptor using singular articles when making general statements. Thus a sentence like: "The process of becoming leader of a small country requires planning and sacrifice." This is not saying there is only one way of becoming leader of a small country - but it is saying that *all* ways of becoming leader of a small country requires planning and sacrifice.

Fortunately, I use intelligent knowledge.

Also, I was *just told* to be more pedantic to discuss RAW.



It means 'duh'.



We're ... talking about becoming a lich. Because someone said, "My player just became a lich." And people said, "That means he's evil." That's the conversation we're having. If you want to speak outside that conversation, that's your choice. But don't expect other people to have already gone outside that conversation, and take their words from your context instead of the context of the thread.



That is not a single act. That is a single result. You do not have a single act that results in a knife. You have a series of actions that results in a knife.



It's not valid.

You can't cast the spell without preparing the spell. Committing it in that mystic way. You can't prepare it without learning the spell. You have to gather the ingredients. You have to craft and prepare the phylactory, or have it crafted for you.

All of these involve actions of evil, because of your intent to commit evil, your disregard for the good things.



And none of these are a single act. I'm very, very curious to know exactly how you see 'an act'. You swing a stick once - that's an act. You swing it twice, that's two acts. You start doing something, you stop. There's a definitive break in the flow of movement. While you can have several actions 'flow into each other', making a nice flow of movement between actions, or while you can have a slow, drawn out act ... acts are generally speaking quick and decisive. With the knife, you have a whole lot of hammer blows, you have to hit the anvil a couple times for every blow to the metal, to bleed off heat. You need to quench the knife. You need to heat the knife. You need to stoke the forge. There's a whole lot of acts involved.

This isn't a theatrical act. We're not talking about being on stage.



They could not perform 'unspeakably evil' acts without realizing what they were doing. The process of corruption would turn that good, innocent soul evil, as they slowly grew to decide that an UNSPEAKABLY EVIL act was acceptable for them to perform.



Oh, not at all. Good people can commit evil acts, and vice versa. But you're forgetting the scope here. This involves UNSPEAKABLY EVIL acts. Not something you mistake for anything else. The *scale* of this is beyond those normal levels of mistake or grey morality. This is UNSPEAKABLY EVIL.

(by the way, the key phrase here is 'unspeakably evil'.)



Uhhh... no. See, there's your problem. The RAW does not state that the actions involved in becoming a lich are evil. The RAW states that the process of becoming a lich is UNSPEAKABLY evil. That's rather an important aspect, there.



Don't forget the word UNSPEAKABLY.



Um ... no, she really didn't. I did. He's an undead creature who stores his soul in another object (7, actually) so that he cannot be fully killed, and if his body is destroyed, the objects storing his soul keep him alive so that he can create a new body. It's born from the exact same mythic seeds that birthed the lich.

And your other examples are not really broadly recognized and known as well as Voldemort. I do love the Spellfire trilogy, especially the first book, which I've read many times, and I enjoyed the Elminster series, too, though it seemed a bit hurried and I wished it would settle on periods of his life in a bit more detail. And yet, I really wouldn't recognize the name of the liches from those books if you said them to me. they weren't nearly so memorable as Voldemort, and the readership wasn't even close to the readership of Harry Potter. *You* didn't read Harry Potter. I'm pretty sure you could put the readership of every book in the Forgotten Realms series together, and the combined readership would not come close to the readership of the Harry Potter series.

(which, by the way, it's just plain stupid to say, "I didn't read the part where it details the elements of how Voldemort is an undead creature who stores his soul in another object, but I'm sure you're saying it cause somewhere in there, the book calls him a lich ... but I know he's not a lich." You should not make absolute statements of knowledge about things you admit you never read. )

And frankly ... those books you mention didn't follow the D&D rules either ... though D&D rules have since been created to attempt to better mirror the books. And they don't *describe* the creation of a lich. The Harry Potter series *does*. Thus making it a better example.

My apology -was- sincere. I'm usually more polite than this, but something about your argument just rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not conceding anything, but I am withdrawing from this conversation. I don't see us coming to a mutual understanding and the odds that one or both of us will be cited for flaming are higher than I'd care to risk.

Good day sir.

[ArcanaGuy]

My apology -was- sincere. I'm usually more polite than this, but something about your argument just rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not conceding anything, but I am withdrawing from this conversation. I don't see us coming to a mutual understanding and the odds that one or both of us will be cited for flaming are higher than I'd care to risk.

Good day sir.

Perfectly acceptable. Hopefully we can discuss a different topic in the future and we'll both be more charitable to the other at that time. :)

And thank you for being so polite in deciding to drop the subject. Most people try to get in the last word before saying what you just said. Props and respect, sir. *tips hat*

[Arcanist]

Okay, this is starting to bug me. Why, please remind me, is it so vitally important to get 9th level spells? Especially as a Druid, when you can already get Wild Shape to mitigate the for loss of Shapechange (they have a feat that allows Undead to Wild Shape), you do not get access to Miracle anyways, and you already have many of your best spells, it completely puzzles me how not getting 9th level spells, or even delaying getting them, seems to be some sin against spell casting. (Ignoring for the moment that with LA buyoff, a druid lick CAN get 9th level spells) Yes they are good, but they are not so good that trading them for something else isn't an option. Okay, so maybe the game breaking potential is lessened, but unless this player was trying to break the game in the first case (which they would be well within their rights NOT to be), than why is that important? Especially when, I should remind you, the druid is also gaining: Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects, critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, energy drain, damage to its physical ability scores, as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects. You know, all that stuff normal spellcasters need to routinely waste spells to make themselves immune to. And that is just the undead benefits. As a lich, you getting destroyed is now generally a complete non-issue. So please, someone tell me why getting these Holy Grails of 9th level spells are as important as people seem to think they are, because clearly I'm missing something.

Considering the fact that in this specific example the Druid is in fact a Blighter (limited spell list), there is no real benefit of having 9th level spells in this case I merely added that he COULD have access if he truly wanted to. I'd rather have access to my entire spell list (stopping at 9th) then not have access to it and wish I did (stopping before 9th).

Regardless, the OPs problem has been solved by the obvious. A simply interaction with his DM; lemme just check off our mandatory thread discussions list...


Argued about alignment in D&D [X]
Argued about the worth of spellcasting [X]
Beretted the OP for making a silly mistake [X]
Made an obscure reference that only the most loyal of fans will get [X]


Case closed ladies and gentlemen, we reconvene in December :smallsigh:

[Jeraa]

Considering the fact that in this specific example the Druid is in fact a Blighter (limited spell list), there is no real benefit of having 9th level spells in this case I merely added that he COULD have access if he truly wanted to.

The OP never said it was a blighter. He just said druid. Blighter did come up, but never by the original poster. In fact, in one of his posts, he said it was a pure druid.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The thing about 9ths is this; as you move up the spell levels, the spells that become available increase in scope and power, sometimes rather dramatically. 9th level spells are better than 8th level spells in most cases, just as 8th's beat out 7th's in most cases.

That said, the importance of reaching 9th level spells does tend to get a bit overstated. 8th's aren't quite as good, but they can still compete at the 17-20 range. 7th level spells, will be struggling to stay ahead of the curve though. If you're an otherwise straight caster and have fallen all the way to 6th level spells by 17th level, you may have a serious problem. This does become notably less pronounced if your DM is shy about using spellcasters against the party though.

[TuggyNE]

Argued about alignment in D&D [X]
Argued about the worth of spellcasting [X]
Beretted the OP for making a silly mistake [X]
Made an obscure reference that only the most loyal of fans will get [X]


Hey. Hey hey hey. We haven't mentioned monks, fighters, or fighter-as-a-class feature, much less ToB! We can't be done yet!

[Zombulian]

Hey. Hey hey hey. We haven't mentioned monks, fighters, or fighter-as-a-class feature, much less ToB! We can't be done yet!

Let's go people!

[Arcanist]

The OP never said it was a blighter. He just said druid. Blighter did come up, but never by the original poster. In fact, in one of his posts, he said it was a pure druid.

I'm honestly not in the mood to fight or argue with someone today. I'll just direct you here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14090474&postcount=18). Saintheart was the first one to reference Blighter and I agreed with him on the matter stating that It would allow him access to 9th level spells. Sorry if I misdirected you to the idea that the OP was a Blighter.


Hey. Hey hey hey. We haven't mentioned monks, fighters, or fighter-as-a-class feature, much less ToB! We can't be done yet!


Let's go people!

No... Just... No... Not today, not tomorrow, never again. :smallsigh:

[Gnorman]

Monks suck, fighters suck, ToB sucks.

There. Can we go home now?

[Psyren]

Hello all. a very, very interesting conversation has gone on, both philosophically and rulewise. Secondly, the main thing I loose 9th level spell wise is shapechange, which, although its fun, my DM would be pissed off anyway if I actuelly tried to use it as my main combat power. Well....for some reason, it appears that my Dungeon master is extremely leniant towards undead cheese as opposed to normal cheese, because he told me today that he likes the idea of a Celtic Mythos inspired undead character that he said he would waive the LA+4, and let me have wildeshape.....so besides the constant risk of becoming a clerics bitch, I think its a good thing now.

Why would you lose Shapechange? Liches can polymorph themselves just fine.

You might lose all your 9ths (depending on when you do this transformation and how long the game runs) but as long as you get to 9, Shapechange is an option.

[Starbuck_II]

Why would you lose Shapechange? Liches can polymorph themselves just fine.

You might lose all your 9ths (depending on when you do this transformation and how long the game runs) but as long as you get to 9, Shapechange is an option.

Shapechange functions as Polymorph (with better stuff). Polymorph only works on living things.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm

So if Polymorph fails to work, Shapechange should likewise fail to work.

[danzibr]

Hmm. It does seem like you can't Shapechange Undead... disappointing.

On an unrelated note, it doesn't seem like anyone addressed Libris Mortis being not 3.5. It is 3.5, right?

[Psyren]

Shapechange functions as Polymorph (with better stuff). Polymorph only works on living things.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm

So if Polymorph fails to work, Shapechange should likewise fail to work.

Liches can explicitly polymorph themselves:


Immunities (Ex)

Liches have immunity to cold, electricity, polymorph (though they can use polymorph effects on themselves), and mind-affecting attacks.

This would be a case of specific trumps general.

[Arcanist]

Hmm. It does seem like you can't Shapechange Undead... disappointing.

On an unrelated note, it doesn't seem like anyone addressed Libris Mortis being not 3.5. It is 3.5, right?

Yes, Libra Mortis is 3.5

[TuggyNE]

Shapechange functions as Polymorph (with better stuff). Polymorph only works on living things.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm

So if Polymorph fails to work, Shapechange should likewise fail to work.

There are two reasons polymorph only works on living creatures. The first is Target: One living creature, which shapechange conveniently changes to Target: You. The second is (arguably) the restriction on types that can be assumed, which doesn't include Undead; shapechange also conveniently removes type restrictions.

Therefore, shapechange has no problem being used by an undead or construct.