So if that's how vampirism works, how about lichdom?

[Edric O]

Ok, so we now have official confirmation of the fact that vampirism in the Stickverse involves replacing the soul of the victim with a new entity, and trapping the old soul inside the victim's body.

This raises the question: Does lichdom have the same kind of effect on the target's soul? Is Xykon-the-lich a different entity from Xykon-the-human, and has the old Xykon's soul been imprisoned this whole time? If so, it would be dramatically appropriate justice for everything Xykon-the-human did while he was alive, not to mention also being a case of sweet irony (for reasons known to SoD readers).

However, clearly Xykon-the-lich thinks he is the same entity as Xykon-the-human (SoD makes this extremely clear). And becoming a lich requires at least the consent - if not the active participation - of the subject, so there would be no new liches being created if the word got out that lichdom is actually a form of soul entrapment rather than immortality plus awesome powers.

So, is there any possibility that lichdom imprisons the soul of the victim while replacing it with a new entity that believes it is the same person? Perhaps like vampirism seems to have worked for Malack? Or maybe this only happens if the target was evil-aligned to begin with?

...or maybe the soul-replacement thing only applies to vampires and Xykon is, in fact, the same person he always was?

[Disclaimer: As with any new crazy OOTS theory, there is a good chance this one has also been suggested before. Still, even in that case, we can examine it in light of the new evidence.]

[Kornaki]

There is a reasonable argument about whether this is standard vampire procedure or a special case for Durkon with Hel abusing some sort of loophole.

[Domino Quartz]

This has already been suggested...and examined in light of the new evidence. I think people (including me) generally came to the conclusion that "lich Xykon" is indeed the same entity as "living Xykon."

[Mrc.]

In Start of Darkness, this is answered rather well. I seem to remember Rich stating that he tried to make Xykon as reprehensible as a human as he is as a lich. Had he made him sympathetic then all the evil stuff he does isn't entirely his fault, and when he (eventually) gets his comeuppance, people will sympathise with Xykon, turning them against the Order. This is clearly not what is wanted for the major antagonist.

[Keltest]

While I suppose its possible that everything written about Lichdom is a lie perpetrated by the death gods, I think its significantly more likely that the ritual works as advertised and simply keeps the soul bound to an object when the current body is destroyed.

[grathungar]

I don't think the soul would be replaced if the person turned was evil. You're already serving that evil god's purposes, why waste another soul on you.

In Durkon's case he wouldn't ever willingly be evil so he had the be restrained and something else had to be created to serve that purpose.

Becoming a Lich is something you have to work towards, its not something that can be done (typically) against your will so I don't think there would be any forcible replacement of your soul.

[Cikomyr]

Lichdoom is something you try to achieve, through horribly evil acts
Vampirisim is something that can be inflicted on you... and just instantaneously makes you evil.

So I would understand why one would swap your soul while the other wouldn't

[Edric O]

In Start of Darkness, this is answered rather well. I seem to remember Rich stating that he tried to make Xykon as reprehensible as a human as he is as a lich. Had he made him sympathetic then all the evil stuff he does isn't entirely his fault, and when he (eventually) gets his comeuppance, people will sympathise with Xykon, turning them against the Order. This is clearly not what is wanted for the major antagonist.
Right, that is why Xykon was always reprehensible, even as a human, from the very first moment we see him.

But precisely because Xykon-the-human was evil and sadistic, him getting his soul trapped by an equally-evil lich would simply constitute poetic justice, and would certainly not be enough to cause readers to sympathize with Xykon-the-human. Therefore, Rich's desire to keep all versions of Xykon reprehensible can't be used as evidence that the soul of Xykon-the-human is the same as the soul of Xykon-the-lich. Whether they are the same evil antagonist or two different evil antagonists (one major, one minor), the emotional reaction from the readers would be the same.

[orrion]

Right, that is why Xykon was always reprehensible, even as a human, from the very first moment we see him.

But precisely because Xykon-the-human was evil and sadistic, him getting his soul trapped by an equally-evil lich would simply constitute poetic justice, and would certainly not be enough to cause readers to sympathize with Xykon-the-human. Therefore, Rich's desire to keep all versions of Xykon reprehensible can't be used as evidence that the soul of Xykon-the-human is the same as the soul of Xykon-the-lich. Whether they are the same evil antagonist or two different evil antagonists (one major, one minor), the emotional reaction from the readers would be the same.

Much of the evil that's been done by Xykon is as a lich. Also, the online story is meant to stand alone (as evidenced by the fact that the prequel books are not online) which means that many readers may have no evidence for how Xykon the human acted, and their entire basis for not sympathizing with him is as a lich. If it were then revealed that the lich is not Xykon, then they would sympathize with Xykon.

[Edric O]

Much of the evil that's been done by Xykon is as a lich. Also, the online story is meant to stand alone (as evidenced by the fact that the prequel books are not online) which means that many readers may have no evidence for how Xykon the human acted, and their entire basis for not sympathizing with him is as a lich. If it were then revealed that the lich is not Xykon, then they would sympathize with Xykon.
Fair point, although some flashbacks could take care of that.

The more important point you brought up here, though, is that the online story is meant to stand alone and that the readers who don't have the prequel books have never really seen Xykon-the-human. This means that revealing the existence of two Xykons would be tantamount to introducing an entirely new evil character (Xykon-the-human) without any clear role in the current storyline, who is receiving a just punishment for what he did a long time ago to some other characters that we've never seen in the main comic before.

I'll grant you that this would be a very odd narrative choice, so Rich probably doesn't intend to go that way.

[Clistenes]

Lichdom is a technique created by mortal evil spellcasters in order to give themselves immortal bodies. Of course that they would want to keep their own souls in control as opposed to being hijacked by some external force.

Vampirism is a curse of undeath that is forced into you, forcefully changes your nature and alignment and makes you turn agains those people you would have previously tried to protect. Whoever or whatever created it didn't want the original personality/soul to be in control.

[wyrmhole]

Much of the evil that's been done by Xykon is as a lich. Also, the online story is meant to stand alone (as evidenced by the fact that the prequel books are not online) which means that many readers may have no evidence for how Xykon the human acted, and their entire basis for not sympathizing with him is as a lich. If it were then revealed that the lich is not Xykon, then they would sympathize with Xykon.

We know that he murdered a librarian/archmage for a non-magical trinket just because it looked cool. Xykon was human in the flashback panel showing this.

Also I just think that vampirism (and other communicable forms of un-life) has always been more of an open question as to how it works than becoming a lich. The whole point of becoming a lich is because you want to extend your "life" and avoid the Big Fire Below as Xykon put it. The research into the ritual to do so probably would have been abandoned as a dead-end if the only way they could figure out to do it is to have their own soul replaced by a new one. Letting someone else have all the fun of immortality is not what being a lich is about!

[Mathalor]

I'm kind of fuzzy about the whole sentient undead with different alignment thing anyway. Vampires are the obvious example, but there are others in DnD. How exactly one turns evil when one gets bitten seems to vary between authors. It varies even more if you get into popular vampire literature.

I think the whole soul imprisonment thing raises more questions than answers.

If the new evil soul was created specifically for this purpose, why would he have trouble with the accent? Is this god he's answering to that inept, and if so, how did she manage to get the timing for the possession right?

Does the new soul have agency, an ability to choose good, or is he not responsible for his actions?

What about the old soul? How is it bound? What would happen if that binding were relaxed or released without the new soul being first destroyed?

What would happen if Durkon's body were raised, would he still have two souls?

Is the new soul entitled to an afterlife upon destruction? If he has agency, would it be based on his choices? How much knowledge does the new soul have? Does he know what is good? Does he just do what he's told?

Does the new soul have a past? Did he exist before Durkon died? If so, what was he? Does he have independant motivations? If not, if he has nothing but his creation and Durkon's memories going on in his head, why, again, would he have trouble with that accent? Wouldn't the accent be the new soul's natural way of speaking just as it was the old, barring minor adjustments for teeth size?

[orrion]

We know that he murdered a librarian/archmage for a non-magical trinket just because it looked cool. Xykon was human in the flashback panel showing this.

That would be one reason I said "much of the evil" and not "all of the evil." Besides, that one act alone wouldn't be enough to make or portray Xykon as irredeemably evil.

[wyrmhole]

That would be one reason I said "much of the evil" and not "all of the evil." Besides, that one act alone wouldn't be enough to make or portray Xykon as irredeemably evil.

Is it also why you said "many readers may have no evidence for how Xykon the human acted", meaning those who haven't read the off-line material like me? Even though we do?

Anyway that act alone demonstrates more than enough continuity between human Xykon's and lich Xykon's personalities to make the issue moot. If this is actually another soul-swap, he got swapped with a soul that was a perfect soul-mate. But there's no reason to think that's the case anyway. Instead it simply shows that Xykon had the same callous disregard for life then as he does now.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

There is a thread very much like this one, debating the differences between different kinds of undead and the differences in lich-Xykon and human-Xykon. It is located here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332223).

[Heksefatter]

Just as an observation regarding liches: While it seems not to be true for the stick-verse and is very rare in D&D in general, it is possible to be a good or neutral lich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lich_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29#Good_liches

It's a quibble, though. From what little we know about liches in the OotS-verse, they seem to be inherently unholy, and besides, it's a rarity in D&D generally. I am just pointing out that we cannot be entirely sure.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't think what happened to durkon is standard procedure for vampires. Malak was shown to genuinely care for durkon (to the point of sabotaging his own team to respect his wish of not killing his friends), so he wouldn't vampirize him if he thought he was condemning his friend to such a terrible fate.
Either that, or the two souls will merge, so malack assumed it would work out in the long run.

EDIT: also, about vampirism being a curse, I'm not that sure. How did it started? I generally assumed that the first vampire was a spellcaster who was seeking his own way to immortality, just like a lich (maybe he didn't knew the process to become a lich and found something else?). If it was a curse, it wouldn't work that well, as it makes the cursed person stronger.

[AKA_Bait]

EDIT: also, about vampirism being a curse, I'm not that sure. How did it started? I generally assumed that the first vampire was a spellcaster who was seeking his own way to immortality, just like a lich (maybe he didn't knew the process to become a lich and found something else?). If it was a curse, it wouldn't work that well, as it makes the cursed person stronger.

The origins of vampirism vary significantly between cultures and (I assume) campaign settings. Most western ideas of vampirism do consider someone who has risen as a vampire to be "cursed." I don't think that we can really draw any conclusions based on what we have seen in-comic regarding the origins of vampirism in the stick-verse.

[Snails]

EDIT: also, about vampirism being a curse, I'm not that sure. How did it started? I generally assumed that the first vampire was a spellcaster who was seeking his own way to immortality, just like a lich (maybe he didn't knew the process to become a lich and found something else?). If it was a curse, it wouldn't work that well, as it makes the cursed person stronger.

It is a fabulous curse if the soul is trapped. For a pure and Good soul, it is a much worse fate than mere death.

In a high magic fantasy world, the downsides may seem less important, especially for the evil minded. In a traditional pagan world view, your soul not being allowed to rest or move to its destiny is not a nice thing. In the Christian mythologies, your fate is sealed and any hope for salvation has been stolen away. In D&D we may meet many villains who are self-identified as evil and okay with it, but that would be a weird outlier in the original mythological context that cooked up vampires.

As for "it makes the cursed person stronger", that is not entirely true. It might work out for a noble count who has minions and can keep his own hours, so that hiding his nature is fairly easy. But for regular folk who lack a bunch of levels, it might be a double death sentence (you already suffered one death, just to earn getting light on fire by an angry mob in your unlife).

[Darkhands]

I'm completely against that theory, I'm firmly in the "this is a special case" camp. This seems like a chance opportunity by Hel; she called him "My serendipitous servant". Serendipity means a "fortuitous happenstance" or "pleasant surprise".

Seems to me that someone in Hel's kingdom spotted a masterless dwarf vampire at just the right time and took him over.

[AKA_Bait]

I'm completely against that theory, I'm firmly in the "this is a special case" camp. This seems like a chance opportunity by Hel; she called him "My serendipitous servant". Serendipity means a "fortuitous happenstance" or "pleasant surprise".

Seems to me that someone in Hel's kingdom spotted a masterless dwarf vampire at just the right time and took him over.

I read that phrase to mean the exact opposite. As in, through no action or machination of her own, Hel now has a High Priest because a cleric of Thor just happened to be turned into a vampire by a vampire cleric of a totally different god.

[Snails]

I agree with AKA_Bait. A powerful priest of Nergal, for his own personal reasons that Hel could never foresee, picked a fight with a powerful priest of Thor and she got first dibs on placing a spirit in the body. Powerful good priests just do not fall to undead that often, and this gift came out of left field.

What is interesting is that Malack might have failed to anticipate this turn of events, because from his point of view it could be a oddball technicality that dwarf undead are the "property" of a very specific deity.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I read that phrase to mean the exact opposite. As in, through no action or machination of her own, Hel now has a High Priest because a cleric of Thor just happened to be turned into a vampire by a vampire cleric of a totally different god.

That was my interpretation as well. I believe that the High Priest of Hel was created in the same manner as the Malak. One problem with determining whether the High Priest of Hel is a special case is that we have only seen two vampires, and only seen the creation of one.

[wyrmhole]

I agree with AKA_Bait. A powerful priest of Nergal, for his own personal reasons that Hel could never foresee, picked a fight with a powerful priest of Thor and she got first dibs on placing a spirit in the body. Powerful good priests just do not fall to undead that often, and this gift came out of left field.

What is interesting is that Malack might have failed to anticipate this turn of events, because from his point of view it could be a oddball technicality that dwarf undead are the "property" of a very specific deity.

True. Or he didn't care that the new vampire would be a follower of Hel, since he got along well enough (up to a point ;) ) with a follower of Thor who isn't even a death god. Maybe he was envisioning entirely new and enlightening theological discussions with his new "sibling"!

[King of Nowhere]

It is a fabulous curse if the soul is trapped. For a pure and Good soul, it is a much worse fate than mere death.

In a high magic fantasy world, the downsides may seem less important, especially for the evil minded. In a traditional pagan world view, your soul not being allowed to rest or move to its destiny is not a nice thing. In the Christian mythologies, your fate is sealed and any hope for salvation has been stolen away. In D&D we may meet many villains who are self-identified as evil and okay with it, but that would be a weird outlier in the original mythological context that cooked up vampires.

As for "it makes the cursed person stronger", that is not entirely true. It might work out for a noble count who has minions and can keep his own hours, so that hiding his nature is fairly easy. But for regular folk who lack a bunch of levels, it might be a double death sentence (you already suffered one death, just to earn getting light on fire by an angry mob in your unlife).
pretty dangerous. I'm not 100% sure about vampirization bonuses, but to get a +8 LA despite the sunlight nuisance they must be pretty good. even a level 1 commoner has a good chance to survive with that (dammage reduction would allow him to survive mobs; this is D&D, an angry mob is cr 8 at most). and if he survive, he will start making minions. and so you'll have a guy with cool powers and an army of minions who also happens to hate you. It's a low-percentage scenario, but still no point to take such a risk just to make someone sufffer more. it's not evil, it's bond-villain stupidity.

Arguments about curse/buff aside, in oots world the world was created little more than one thousand years ago and was already in shape, so probably there were already a few vampires. so could be either way.

[Snails]

LA is not a great gauge under "normal" heroic scenarios. It is really wonky with low HD.

Yeah, a Vampire Commoner1 is potentially dangerous, but it has exactly d12 HP. If working alone, a small mob with fire can force it to gaseous form with a single lucky hit. Then the mob follows the vampire to its casket and finishes the job.

Obviously a certain degree of stealth and not working alone helps here. My point is not that vampires lack teeth (pun intended), but that it is not automatically a good deal for non-heroic (leveled up) characters.

[The Giant]

This thread has the exact same topic (and some of the same arguments by the same people) as this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332223), which predates it. Rather than merge them and cause confusion, I'm locking this one and ask that everyone take their discussion over to that one.