Liches are Inherently Evil? I DISAGREE

[Emperor Moth]

This is going to be a big post, so it'll probably only interest people who are somewhat adept with the lore of the game, and interested in philosophy themselves. I'm going to go ahead and keep in line with the pathfinder cosmology and setup for the purpose of making my argument. While I may reference content from WoTC for reasons of filling in the holes, I'm going to stick to the Pathfinder mandates on the nature of the undead, which have a few conflicts with the DND universe.


Liches are Evil?
Undeath 101
Alignment For Dummies
Why Liches are Unique
Why Liches Become Evil


While not the case in the DND universes, Pathfinder assumes all liches are evil because Pathfinder assumes all undead are evil. The nature of undeath itself is evil. Now, for most intensive reasons, I agree with this. The undead are inherently problematic in most cases. Undead are predators who feast upon the living in more ways than one. They are selfish creatures who only take, and give nothing to the circle of life. They do not birth life, they only drag it into death, or further into undeath. They hunger endlessly, and all passions, if any still exist, are consumed by a hunger so great, no mortal can ever understand, for if they did, it would kill them.

Humans and other mortal creatures are borne of positive energy. This good energy can save lives, heal wounds, even raise the dead to return to mortality; it is poison to undead, who sustain themselves on negative energy, the stuff of pain, hatred, death, and corruption. In Pathfinder, the very act of channeling negative energy, for any reason, is an act of evil... perhaps not because of its intent. A simple fireball can kill an orc, or maybe something as simple as a sword; to tap into negative energy, it is not the destruction which is evil, but rather what you must become to pull from this plane. You must become a conduit of misery, death, and hate- and that is understandably evil, even for those of an otherwise neutral disposition.

Liches, being undead, are bathed in this vile stuff, so much so that they may very well become small portals to this most insidious plane... for liches cannot be killed. The question arises, does this make liches evil, that their very existence is tied to the plane that is evil defined? It's not that a strong case couldn't be built here for that reason, but I am here to disagree.

While not necessary, it is helpful to outlay the nature of the undead in a digestable format that clearly defines how they are evil, what makes them evil, and attempt to rationalize their dispositions. If you don't want a long winded explanation of things you might already know, then skip to the next part. I make this list to put things into context.


Mindless Undead
Incorporeal Undead
The Hungry Dead


Mindless Undead can be handled two different ways, as I see it: either they have a nature or they don't. Skeletons and Zombies, when created, are immediately under control of their creators. They have no will of their own, so I feel it is safe to assume they have no nature, and are merely puppets at the will of their masters. Perhaps they retain some inkling of their former lives, and fear a return to death, so may lash out when attacked... but I imagine these kinds of undead, when left without a master, simply do nothing. They wander back and forth, have no goals, need not eat, and have no drive whatsoever. If anything, they're mindless vegetables, but can still walk about.

Now, if they do have a nature, that nature is most certainly evil. Given they are mindless, they will likely give in to evil because they are animated by evil energy, so expect senseless violence for no other reason than compulsion.

I do not think Pathfinder has shown a preference either which way, but I may be wrong. One final note needs sharing- these undead are not in any way natural. They are the creations of spellcasters, and do not form under any natural condition. I like to think of them as necromancy's approach to constructs. Do they even have souls?


Incorporeal Undead are different for a variety of reasons, but let's just focus on one: they aren't mindless. They are anything but mindless. Incorporeal undead rise, usually spontaneously, due to some sort of tragic death of a person who is so strong willed, they refuse to leave the mortal plane. Ghosts, spectres, banshees, wraiths, all of these things are aspects of souls who have somehow tapped into the negative energy plane to fuel their existence, and bind them to this world, albeit all with limitations.

Nearly all are unspeakably evil, vengeful creatures, and even if you have nothing to do with the source of their wrath, they will drain you dry in an attempt to prolong their own existence. The few who aren't evil are simply trapped, and would be delighted if someone would right the wrongs that bind them so they can leave this place and meet their eternity.

What needs mention is that they are unintentional, in most cases. They become evil parasites, presumably because it is the only thing that allows them to keep existing, and continue to do so to escape their most dreaded fear of Pharasma, who may very well see their predicament as reason to banish them to the evil planes for all eternity.


The Hungry Dead are interesting because no one knows precisely how all of them came about. Some of them are basically unresting animals, others malicious kill machines, and then there are even the Vampires who must hold on to every shred of humanity they can, if only to survive. All of them have two things in common- they must feed or suffer unimaginable agony, and those they drain dry will rise as the same sort of monstrosity that they are. DND suggests Wights are a natural form of undead, because any person who dies to negative energy drain will rise as a wight unless otherwise specified... and there are a handful of magical and planar events that can cause energy drain to occur. Pathfinder does not seem to share this mechanism, but it is weakly present in men who die from energy drain from cursed items once belonging to wight. Morhgs rise from exceptionally evil individuals, much like ghosts, but can take over a skeleton, so they may be the closest thing to a natural event, but the rest leave question as to their origins, if they are simply the creations of early necromancers, or just the horror of mortal nature.

The hungry dead have bodies, and thoughts, and have no limitations as to where they can walk or where they can go. They are free willed, but their hunger is so great that even the once good souls they might have been become corrupted in a pragmatic world of kill or starve for eternity. Surely the warping of these minds is facilitated by an aversion to the loving energy that once nourished them, and an absolute necessity to mend their unhealing wounds with the vile stuff of hate and nightmares. Even Vampires, who can with great willpower, restrain themselves from feeding on unwilling individuals, will invariably suffer so greatly that they find the only release from their excruciating agony is to feed until they can no longer fit more blood in their mouths. What ghost in the machine lived on will be lost to unending pain, and shame, and loss, and darkness, and great fear. Their nature is hunger, and it is what drives even the most iron willed of them to become monstrosities, not only of flesh, but of the soul.

They become alien to mortals, and will most likely develop philosophies around their existence. It is a necessity for some of them to rationalize their existence as a parasite. They view mortals as the prey, and they are the hunters. Perhaps they see it as no different for them to hunt the living than it was when they were mortal to hunt animals. Vampires may see mortals as cattle in their farms, feeling no remorse for their plight- for they learned that mercy gives way to the prey becoming hunters themselves. They hunger, as mortals hunger, and have great fear of death. They will become evil, if they were already not, and will eventually relish in their vile deeds because it is the thing that they exist for. To feed is their nature, and their purpose.

Alignment is a source of great disparity among DMs and players. Personally, I think people put too much stock into it, and have such great concern for a stat that they, in reality, should never have seen in the first place. I think DMs should be the arbiters of someone's alignment because no one should really be able to judge themselves fairly, whether good or evil.

However, in that regard, my view on the Good vs Evil axis is not complicated, but there are those of you who will not share it. I believe that mortals tend towards neutrality, and that this is a strong trend that requires circumstances to change. Doing good does not make you good, and doing evil does not make you evil. Just because a man does everything he can to help the poor does not excuse him when he mercilessly slaughters men of wealth and high station. Likewise, a Paladin may be forced to commit an act of great evil to preserve a greater good, sacrificing his own glory for a cause more important for himself... but that does not make him evil. No, acts do not define your alignment because that is just too simple. Killing does not make you evil, and selfless love does not make you good... they are merely acts. What defines your alignment is much more base- your nature. Do you intend to do good, or do you intend to do evil?

For that, mortals are neutral because they often intend to do both. It is through piety and humility that one may become "good," and it is through becoming a perpetual monster that mortals become evil. To do either is not uncommon, it just requires dedication.

What makes undead evil is their nature: they bring nothing but misery and death. They may not even want to do the things they do, but they do it anyways because it is their nature.


Liches do not hunger. They have no desire to feed, as that simply fades away. They sustain themselves purely of negative energy, and harm no one else in doing it. The exact process of becoming a lich is and has always been left very vague, but pathfinder asserts that the act is unspeakably evil. Without ever explaining why, we are supposed to assume that either to create it, there must be some sort of evil ritual of sacrifice or suffering, or even that the phylactery itself is evil. At any rate, none of this is ever explained as matter of fact, so we are just made to assume "evil because undead."

That doesn't fly with me because there is no reason for liches to need to be evil! A great many of them pursue lichdom for one reason- eternal life. That desire is not evil, and neither is obtaining it, as there are more than few mortals who were simply gifted eternal life by their deities. While I can see divine casters who become liches being unspeakably evil, this is because the REASON they are liches is because some evil god granted them the ability to do so, most likely at the price of giving them their phylactery somehow for leverage. Arcane liches are different, however, because many of them obtain lichdom not with support of the gods, but in spite of them.

Many seem content to hole themselves up for eons, making no effect whatsoever on the world outside their deathly abode. They harm nothing, and perhaps help nothing either. A few of them may, unintentionally, even do good by bringing undead in the surrounding area into their hiding places as guards, but removing their threat from the world of the living. Some have aspirations that will lead them to evil, but this is no different than with mortals.

Can there not be good liches?


"You missed an interesting time in this village, travelers. It wasn't but last month that we were visited by Father Bonerot Bloodmangler. Now, don't let that name fool you; sweet guy, really. He came here with his army of skeleton... builders. Built us an orphanage, actually, and our old one burned down a year back. He gave us quite a scare at first, didn't speak to anyone, and the guards were too afraid to go near him, but after some time he took a stroll into town to explain this all to the town cleric who's jaw must have dropped lower than Bonerot's. With a permanent grin, he spoke in cheerful limericks to the town children, and never did a thing to suggest any harm would come to us. Not but two days ago, the shepherd of the dead's work here was done. As his desiccated figure shambled off into the distance in a sea of bones and tools, I shed the most confusing tear I'd ever shed. As quickly as he graced us with his presence, he was gone, and so too was the melodious click clack clack of his sleepless workers down by the river."



This is a subject that gets heavier as it goes, as it relies not only on some twisted form of politics, but makes its descent into existentialism and the exact nature of the lich...

The mindless undead seem like little more than puppets and servitors as an extention of their creators. Ghosts and the like are the aftermath of tragedy, seeking peace but finding none until some brave adventurer gives it to them. The hungry undead are what happen to mortals when they must become monsters to endure the blasphemous curse thrown upon them. In spite of all of this... liches are no tragedy, and rejoice in their victory over the grave. Through their arduous and obsessive search for unlife, it is likely that this journey has consumed them. What price must be payed for unlife, we may never know. It may be a universal secret, hidden in the whispers of a tyrant long since silenced in the mythic ages. It may be more personal, and the truth is that the method of creating a phylactery can not be discovered, but each maker must create their own way... with many failures disappearing into the pages of history. Regardless of this, I stand by my claim that evil actions do not make an evil person, and by whatever unexplained reason the moral authorities deem lichdom as evil, I do not believe even such an act will irrevocably turn someone evil. We all make mistakes, even the wisest of clerics, but should we not look forward?

The gods do not see it this way, but what act would save you? What repentence is there for this greatest blasphemy, to spit in the face of the natural order? THE LICH HAS NO NATURE, FOR IT HAS LEFT THEM. What remains is will and defiance against gods who offer no path of atonement. Should they simply destroy their own phylactery and damn themselves to eternity in the lower planes for their hubris? Nay, I say, for the pursuit of lichdom is the pursuit of something entirely different.

The gods seem fit to deem it a threat, as if to keep mortals from rivaling them. This is the anger, the madness, and the desperation they must face for eons to come as they realize that in their haste to become immortal, they have made enemies of everyone! Urgathoa may be the only friend they have, but at what price?


"Am I evil? They all say I am. The demons fear me, the devils loathe me, daemons cannot nip at my soul, and all the gods themselves and all their mercy has turned sour at the face of death who lives!"

Liches are driven to evil because no one trusts a lich. There is no good in the world they could do that they would not be spit at for attempting. There is no redemption, there is only will, and in time, torpor will take even that. They have cursed themselves to save themselves... but are they really evil, or just forsaken?

Pathfinder presents a tragedy for liches, where DND made no such unwavering law. In this, however, I must ask, on who's authority may a lich be called evil regardless of his deeds? This is either an inconsistency, or a conspiracy, because they lack the nature of evil that undead has thrust upon those who did not choose this path.


Feel free to discuss. This is, by far, the most fascinating subject in the game to me.

[Divide by Zero]

I agree that undead in general aren't necessarily evil, but the 3.5 lich explicitly says that "the process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil." It doesn't elaborate, but I think most people interpret that to mean that the ritual involves human sacrifice or something along those lines. At BEST, they'd have to be an ends justify the means kind of character.

[Emperor Moth]

I agree that undead in general aren't necessarily evil, but the 3.5 lich explicitly says that "the process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil." It doesn't elaborate, but I think most people interpret that to mean that the ritual involves human sacrifice or something along those lines. At BEST, they'd have to be an ends justify the means kind of character.As said in the OP, the process of creating a phylactery is always left vague. I think it would require an explanation of what it is to define them as evil. Since none is provided, what are we to assume?

While the 3.5 lich does get described as evil, there were a few books describing variants. Faerun gave elves a path to becoming a religious good lich, and I remember somewhere seeing a variant for a very catch-all good lich. The latter seems very mary-sue, but is understandable at the same time.

The best hope in Pathfinder is the planet Eox, which is inhabited almost entirely by liches. I don't think it would be fair to describe ANY of them as good, but it seems unfair to call them evil, either, when they share this knowledge freely to any who desire it, and they themselves are the only reason why their race survived the death of their planet.

[Divide by Zero]

As said in the OP, the process of creating a phylactery is always left vague. I think it would require an explanation of what it is to define them as evil. Since none is provided, what are we to assume?

While the 3.5 lich does get described as evil, there were a few books describing variants. Faerun gave elves a path to becoming a religious good lich, and I remember somewhere seeing a variant for a very catch-all good lich. The latter seems very mary-sue, but is understandable at the same time.

The best hope in Pathfinder is the planet Eox, which is inhabited almost entirely by liches. I don't think it would be fair to describe ANY of them as good, but it seems unfair to call them evil, either, when they share this knowledge freely to any who desire it, and they themselves are the only reason why their race survived the death of their planet.

I would assume it's left vague for the same reason that the torture rules in BoVD are left vague. Most tables aren't going to want to deal with material like that.

The existence of variant liches doesn't stop the default lich from being evil any more than the existence of paladin variants stops the default paladin from being Lawful Good.

[Baroncognito]

The exact process of becoming a lich is and has always been left very vague, but pathfinder asserts that the act is unspeakably evil. Without ever explaining why, we are supposed to assume that either to create it, there must be some sort of evil ritual of sacrifice or suffering, or even that the phylactery itself is evil

Well, they can't get into detail about the act because it's unspeakably evil. Any act you can describe therefore fall short of the evil required.

Maybe the act is on the edge of spoken evil, and you can describe an evil act that approaches the vileness required, and so the limit would be the act, but we don't have a guarantee of that. It's possible that the act isn't even the limit of any describable acts.

[georgie_leech]

Well, they can't get into detail about the act because it's unspeakably evil. Any act you can describe therefore fall short of the evil required.

Maybe the act is on the edge of spoken evil, and you can describe an evil act that approaches the vileness required, and so the limit would be the act, but we don't have a guarantee of that. It's possible that the act isn't even the limit of any describable acts.

In other words, it's left vague so there can be no question that doing so drops you to Evil. It doesn't matter how many kittens you've saved, how many damsels rescued, how many wrongs righted, it's Evil enough to wash it all out in terms of Alignment.

Mind you nothing says you can't then spend the rest of your unlife righting wrongs, undistressing damsels, and getting kittens out of trees. You'll just never be able to avoid Paladins being able to Smite you and Holy weapons giving you grief.

[LOTRfan]

A minor thing; when it comes to the mindless dead, one of the Pathfinder Supplements (either Undead Revisited or Classic Horrors Revisited, can't remember wish) seems to indicate that zombies and skeletons can and do occasionally rise by themselves, and that these hordes do mindlessly lash out at every living creature they find.


I personally use the Whedon-rationale when it comes to undead; most physical undead lack the soul they had in life, and thus lack free will; they are prone to certain behaviors based off of their condition and cannot break out of that mold. Vampires, ghouls, wights, and most undead creatures are like that. Liches are not, because they explicitly have a soul and thus free will.

I would make the argument that while all Liches start out evil (because of aforementioned "unspeakably evil act"), I'd say that because the Lich still maintains its soul, it could theoretically repent/be redeemed and therefore not necessarily have an evil alignment.

[Emperor Moth]

Well, they can't get into detail about the act because it's unspeakably evil. Any act you can describe therefore fall short of the evil required.Well, that IS the disparity, isn't it? Still, there are evil languages for that, and none of them can be used for that either.


Maybe the act is on the edge of spoken evil, and you can describe an evil act that approaches the vileness required, and so the limit would be the act, but we don't have a guarantee of that. It's possible that the act isn't even the limit of any describable acts.Maybe the act can't be spoken so much that it can only be WHISPERED. #sottovoice #copout

[Hyena]

The thing about liches, process of transformation involves act of unspeakable evil - something that couldn't be printed in the book. BoVD deals with torture and human sacrificies, which means that transformation into lich demands something worse then torture and human sacrifices.

[Emperor Moth]

The thing about liches, process of transformation involves act of unspeakable evil - something that couldn't be printed in the book. BoVD deals with torture and human sacrificies, which means that transformation into lich demands something worse then torture and human sacrifices.Interestingly enough, there's only one book that does, actually, attempt to cover unspeakable horrors (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11917.phtml)... perhaps we have a lead?

[not.a.newb]

Could there be, perhaps, other things like liches, that are not evil? If so, maybe we could define liches as those who attained their immortality via the unspeakably evil ritual, and other immortal undead who seem outwardly like liches are categorized as something different, purely on the basis of the fact that they didn't undergo the unspeakably evil ritual?

[Emperor Moth]

Could there be, perhaps, other things like liches, that are not evil? If so, maybe we could define liches as those who attained their immortality via the unspeakably evil ritual, and other immortal undead who seem outwardly like liches are categorized as something different, purely on the basis of the fact that they didn't undergo the unspeakably evil ritual?The Archlich? (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Archlich) It's still a lich, it's still called a lich, and the method of becoming one is described as "nearly identical," so I can't imagine anything "unspeakably good" could EVER be considered "nearly identical" to "unspeakably evil."

I think the phylactery itself is considered evil, and the reason why probably has something to do with hubris. The Archlich has no such problem because they are noble in formation; fanatical, even.

[oldkingkoal]

This has always been a subject of DnD that that held a great curiosity to me.

In a game I've been working on the party will encounter an ancient kobold lich (Yeah, who'da thunk it? <_< *Looks at avatar* <_<). This liches motivations for becoming a lich was not dominating the world, but out of fear. From what I understand of the lore behind the kobold after life, after a long lifetime of toil and servitude and slaving in mines, they die. Do they get some kind of great peace and rest in death? Pshh, Nope! Kurtlmak stuffs their reincarnated soul into another egg to start the cycle all over again. So basically the characters motivation for undergoing the ritual is an escape of an endless cycle of slavery that is bound to his very soul.

Consider that the thing the lich gains by this evil act is (semi) eternal life. Can you imagine what you could accomplish in life with just removing those necessities of sleep and food? That opens up the possibility for A LOT of time to think about things. Yeah he might contemplate the logistics of taking over the world once or twice, or how to best extort the local kingdoms, but how long until he simply gets bored with weaving plots and arcane research? That's still a freaking lot of time to think about his actions, and contemplate his place in the universe and the true values of good and evil and we are to assume that in the passing eons he not once come to a conclusion, or encounter something that might change his perspective? A simple fact of life is that people change over time, and wisdom comes with age (Though I'll admit, I have met a few exceptions to that rule) and liches are dealing with a whole freaking lot of time.

Ive just always thought of liches as a fun hypothetical to consider.

[Emperor Moth]

So, with some regard for points people have raised, and some of my own replies, I think I've drawn a few lines together that are smattered with all kinds of insanity becoming of a conspiracy theory... which is good, because liches are insane!

So, what might this "unspeakable evil" be? Well, we can't speak it, but we can hint at it. The best I see, DND allows for one possibility... the other "unspeakable evil" of the world is not the abyss... because there's a few artifact books about it you can read. No, the unspeakable evils of the DND universe are the Lords of Madness.

In this book detailing what can be said of abberant ideology, it is said that the aberrants do not see their gods as distant as we mortals see ours... no, they see them as paragons of a status that they, too, might one day obtain.

DETOUR! Mindflayers are no strangers to the concept of lichdom. They are known as the Alhoon Liches (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Alhoon_lich), and are viewed as abominations, even by Illithid standards, because they defy the will of the Elder Brains, their gods.

DETOUR AGAIN! In the act of becoming a lich, there are "many variables," and one of them results in the formation of an aberrant Void Lich (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Void_lich).

So, what have we learned, kids? Aberrations seem oddly entwined with lichdom. No line has really been drawn in any of the books describing either, but they are also the only entities who's exact evilness is so vague that they do not describe. An interesting point to raise would be about Mak Thuum Ngatha, the nine-tongued worm(a King of Worms, even?). While he does not have a domain dealing with undeath, he is the elder god most interested in the mortal plane, and the only tidbit described about him is "inimical towards all living things". Perhaps he's Rovagug by any other name, but perhaps there's something here. It certainly doesn't help that his holy symbol is described as a worm with nine tongues, but a less literal view of it looks more like AN URN OF SOULS.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w304/Vxrazzn/MakThuumNgatha.jpg

I'll leave one more parallel. The lords of madness draws heavily from HP Lovecraft, and the Cthulu mythos. Anyone familiar with Lovecraft knows his most famous words:


"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."

Perhaps lichdom and indescribable madness are inseparable. It's not like something like this (http://www.wowwiki.com/Yogg-Saron) is so distant it CAN'T be coterminous.

[DeadMech]

Something different about an archlich as opposed to a normal one is that some legitimate group has deemed it's creation necessary. If the unspeakable evil required to bind your soul and draw upon the negative plane requires ritual sacrifice or torture or both then any organization of enough significance should have access to enough criminals or willing subjects to supply it. Or maybe they throw a geass or similar curse on the would be lich tying him permanently to his task to help him resist the taint of the hungry hungry negative plane.

I'm not against there being a good lich, one who takes an ends justify the means or a for the greater good attitude. But when they specify evil alignment to become one and say unspeakable evil act, I kinda get bent out of shape when people try to justify becoming one as no big deal with no repercussions and no strings attached. Not that DnD alignment isn't sometimes really really dumb.

There really should be a reason, some cost, that every person in the world isn't lining up to become undead. You know, aside from the shriveling and questionable formaldehyde scent.

[AvatarVecna]

General Alignment Debate
Alignment is always a touchy debate. There's a sigged quote somewhere around here (I used to have it in my sig, but there wasn't room anymore); it goes something like "A single action cannot, does not, and should not define a person's alignment; their alignment is the average of all of their acts, and more importantly the circumstances and motivations involved."

While intentions, circumstances, and motivations are important to keep in mind when discussing alignment, we can't just ignore actions for the sake of such things. Some acts have been judged by our society to be inherently evil; for some of these acts, there are circumstances and motivations that justify the act, despite its inherent evil.



http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f0/b3/0a/f0b30ac711c60876bd4adb05593afb87.jpg


Whenever I'm debating whether an action is evil, I have questions I ask myself to help make the answer more clear.

1) Separate from the context involved, would the action be considered evil?
2) Who gains from the action's success, who loses from its failure, and in what ways?
3) Who loses from the action's success, who gains from its failure, and in what ways?

Let's show an example: a villain captures a small town, as well as the paladin who defends it. The paladin is given a choice: kill 10 innocent townmembers, and the villain will release the whole village; refuse, and the villain will kill 25 other innocent townmembers before he leaves; finally, if the paladin kills himself, the villain will leave without doing anybody any harm. The villain can be trusted to keep his word. The paladin can kill ten innocent to save the rest, or condemn 25 innocents, but keep his own hands directly clean. The trick is that either action is evil in nature: whether actively killing innocent civilians, or allowing innocent civilians to die through inaction. The only morally sound choice would be to sacrifice himself. Of course, this is a rather extreme example, but it serves the purpose.

Many good deeds are rewarded, and rewards can serve as motivation. A Good person does good deeds for their own sake, with the rewards being unexpected, unnecessary, and appreciated. An Evil person does good deeds solely for the reward; if there were no reward, they wouldn't perform good deeds. A Neutral person does good deeds for the reward, as well as for the satisfaction of doing the right thing; they were raised with strong moral beliefs, but it's hard to be a good person without screwing yourself over, so people tend not to do good deeds, even though they would if an opportunity to do so consequence-free came along.



http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111031001817/fairlyoddparents/en/images/5/58/ItsAWishfulLife120.jpg
"You aren't supposed to do good deeds because they will get you noticed! You are supposed to do them because they are the right thing to do!"



So how does that apply to liches?

This section should be mercifully shorter than the last. My goal is simple: to approximate the actions necessary to become a lich, and the mindset necessary to go through with such actions.

To determine what exactly "acts of unspeakable evil" could mean, I'm going to compare the lich wizard the the alchemist: a master alchemist, who is arguably the best at their craft, can spend years of time, wagonloads of gold pieces, and 8 hours of solid effort a day researching their subject, testing and experimenting, all for the purpose of learning to create a fully functioning philosopher's stone (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/artifacts/minor-artifacts/philosopher-s-stone). This would be the goal of their careers: every extra gold piece and extra minute would be spent researching for this. All for a 1/month potion of True Resurrection.

Let's compare to the lich's path to immortality. As many liches start as wizards, it makes sense that they would accomplish the process via research in the appropriate field; namely, necromancy. No doubt being intimately familiar with their chosen school of magic, prospective liches would be aware that any screwups while transferring their soul to a phylactery could result in their death, or their unintelligent unlife. They've got to be careful when screwing around with soul magic. It's fairly safe to assume that, like one's body and one's mind, one's soul is unique in that it is an unreplicable collection of a large group of diverse variables. In order to make sure that their soul can survive the transfer, they need to learn what variables of the soul affect the transfer process, and in what way they affect it. How do they do that? As with the alchemist, research and experimentation.

Warning: Unspeakable Evils Spoken of Within

To be clear, we're talking about a necromancer spending lots of time and money to learn how to properly remove souls from bodies without making them into zombies and the like. To start with, there's not a lot of people aspiring to be undead servitors, so we're probably looking at kidnapping your test subjects. In magical theory, mythology, and spirituality, the body, mind, and soul are linked together in a triumvirate of life; by attempting to understand what makes a soul unique, the prospective lich must know what makes the body and mind unique as well. Once the body and mind have been understood, the prospective lich must separate the subject's soul from their body and mind and study the variables that make up the soul, killing them in the process. The prospective lich must learn the ins and outs of many people, in order to understand the variable in place. With enough time spent researching, the prospective lich can learn the variables that govern its own body, mind, and soul, and only then, can they safely separate their soul without the threat of death/undeath.

To sum it up: going by some basic assumptions of how in-game magic works, as well as applying a bit of logic to an admittedly hypothetical situation, we have found a possible way that the path to lichdom works. That path starts with the prospective lich stealing someone away from their life (their relationships, job, city, etc.); continuing on the path, the prospective lich must physically, mentally, and spiritually rape their victim in a non-sexual manner; finally, they must kill their victim. And because doing one experiment isn't enough to learn very much about something as complex as life, the experiment must be repeated over and over. And over. And over. And over. And over.


Even if that hypothetical process isn't how one would achieve lichdom, it serves as a good example of the level of evil acts that we're talking about. Liches are evil not because good people can't become liches, but because either they wouldn't, or the process of doing so would make them evil. It's possible that someone could convince themselves that they're doing it for the Greater Good, and that the ends justify the means. But once the Greater Good has been reached, would they willingly, immediately destroy the foul body they had no choice but to create? Would they be willing to give up the power they've gained for the sake of their principles?

Heed the words of Vaarsuvius' mate. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0642.html)

[jedipotter]

The Archlich? (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Archlich) It's still a lich, it's still called a lich, and the method of becoming one is described as "nearly identical," so I can't imagine anything "unspeakably good" could EVER be considered "nearly identical" to "unspeakably evil."


In D&D 2E all undead where not evil. Most undead were evil, but it was not automatically part of being undead. And in the Forgotten Realms there were tons and tons and tons of good undead.

3x and Pathfinder go down the All Undead are Evil road, sadly. And D&D undead have been stuck there....

I don't see any reason that becoming a lich ''must be an evil way''. I'd be fine with ''the easy way to become a lich is evil'', but there are other ways, not evil, that take longer and are hard.

I would say most intelligent undead stay whatever alignment they were in life...at first. Of course, as they are not alive, they can't just go back to society and fit in like nothing happened. There is almost no way most societies will accept an undead member....and even if they wanted too, the undead are just so creepy that it makes it hard at best. And any undead would have a hard time ''having fun'' or doing ''normal social things''. And there would always be the temptation to use the undead powers, and the feeling that the normal laws and customs of people don't apply to you anymore.

Check out Once Upon a Time, it's a good show. Check out Rumpelstiltskin, he starts as a normal man and then becomes ''the Dark One''. And after he is transformed, he tries to stay 'normal', but finds he can't resist the temptation of his new powers. And he looses everything....as he gains his power. You can also check out the Evil Queen Regina, as she has a similar fall from 'normal' to 'does not fit in to society any more'.

[hamishspence]

As said in the OP, the process of creating a phylactery is always left vague. I think it would require an explanation of what it is to define them as evil. Since none is provided, what are we to assume?

5e provides an explanation in the MM - creating the phylactery requires the sacrifice of a soul to it - and in order to avoid devolving into a demilich - souls must regularly be fed into the phylactery, which destroys them.

[flamewolf393]

The main reason that the process of lichdom is evil, is your are doing unnatural things to your own soul. You are ripping it from your living self and trapping it in a box. To do this requires immense power derived from sacred/profane rituals. The thing is, any good aligned being that desires immortal life? There are plenty of ways to do this that do not require the perversion of ones soul in the way liches do.

That is the main reason they are evil, they choose an evil unnatural method for preserving themselves rather than a more natural form.

[Sartharina]

Well, they can't get into detail about the act because it's unspeakably evil. Any act you can describe therefore fall short of the evil required.

Maybe the act is on the edge of spoken evil, and you can describe an evil act that approaches the vileness required, and so the limit would be the act, but we don't have a guarantee of that. It's possible that the act isn't even the limit of any describable acts.In other words, it's left vague so there can be no question that doing so drops you to Evil. It doesn't matter how many kittens you've saved, how many damsels rescued, how many wrongs righted, it's Evil enough to wash it all out in terms of Alignment.

Mind you nothing says you can't then spend the rest of your unlife righting wrongs, undistressing damsels, and getting kittens out of trees. You'll just never be able to avoid Paladins being able to Smite you and Holy weapons giving you grief.This whole conversation, in conjunction with something from AD&D, has made me wonder if there's a link between lichdom and The Nameless One's plight.

[hamishspence]

In 3e (Complete Divine) the soul is trapped in the undead body - it only retreats to the box when the body is destroyed.

In 5e, it seems more like the soul is transferred to the phylactery from the start, and that the lich body could be thought of as "remotely controlled" from the phylactery.

[Batou1976]

In 5e, it seems more like the soul is transferred to the phylactery from the start, and that the lich body could be thought of as "remotely controlled" from the phylactery.

I've always thought of liches working this way, even waaaay back in my 2E days.

[marcielle]

I remember it being mentioned that the ALWAYS part of alignments do not literally mean 100%. I take this to mean that most liches are evil, because non-evil people would try everything else(and either succeed or fail) before going for lichdom. But there might be those who are good or even neutral, who think they can pay back the karma debt(and with good reason, there's very little an immortal spellcaster can't do) and hence you have your non-evil who becomes a lich. Say the process is evil enough to knock you down to evil no matter what the intention, there is nothing KEEPING a lich evil(except maybe, the attitudes of gods towards liches). Many liches are mad, but what's to say they weren't predisposed to said madness before lichdom and simply feel like they can let loose more now that they are effectively unkillable?
I mean, the liches aren't schizophrenia/depressive disorder/ bulemia types of madness. It's almost universally sociopathy(although 3.5 had one lich that was merely incredibly senile). A trait likely already inherent in people willing to commit an 'unspeakably evil' act.

My 2 cents is 'Always Evil' refers to the facts that a) The ritual knocks you down the alignment axis for doing it b) The people willing to do the act are statistically overwhelmingly evil to begin with and c) The gods don't like you and label you as such

Nail in the coffin(for Golarion):
(Un)Living in Aroden's Realm in Axis, there is a Non-evilly aligned Lich, fighting against the Formorians and Devils, preventing them from claiming Aroden's residual power. This means that is is at least possible to perform enough good deeds to balance out the Karma debt, if not bring you back to the side of good.
Source: Pathfinder Companion: The Great Beyond - A guide to the Multiverse.

[hamishspence]

I remember it being mentioned that the ALWAYS part of alignments do not literally mean 100%. I take this to mean that most liches are evil, because non-evil people would try everything else(and either succeed or fail) before going for lichdom. But there might be those who are good or even neutral, who think they can pay back the karma debt(and with good reason, there's very little an immortal spellcaster can't do) and hence you have your non-evil who becomes a lich. Say the process is evil enough to knock you down to evil no matter what the intention, there is nothing KEEPING a lich evil(except maybe, the attitudes of gods towards liches). Many liches are mad, but what's to say they weren't predisposed to said madness before lichdom and simply feel like they can let loose more now that they are effectively unkillable?
I mean, the liches aren't schizophrenia/depressive disorder/ bulemia types of madness. It's almost universally sociopathy(although 3.5 had one lich that was merely incredibly senile). A trait likely already inherent in people willing to commit an 'unspeakably evil' act.

My 2 cents is 'Always Evil' refers to the facts that a) The ritual knocks you down the alignment axis for doing it b) The people willing to do the act are statistically overwhelmingly evil to begin with and c) The gods don't like you and label you as such.

Non-evil undead ping as evil anyway in 3.5 (but not Pathfinder).

[Vhaidara]

So, my view on this: Liches, like every intelligent undead, are forced to evil by the process of becoming undead. They then are able to change their alignment to whatever they want. It is easier for liches because they don't have to feed, but it can work for any intelligent undead. Mostly through the acquisition of livestock and their use for sate the hungers, or acquiring the means of casting Restoration and feeding by an agreement in which they compensate the other party and repair the damage that was done.

[atemu1234]

In 3.5, the creation of a phylactery for a lich is unspeakably evil (as per RAW). The template itself changes the good-evil axis of their alignment to Any Evil. So yeah, that's one argument, at least rules-wise.

As to the zombies and skeletons, if left uncontrolled, they will attack people. They may be mindless, but they also inherently want to kill people. The very creation of them is vile because it involves desecrating the dead (granted, this doesn't automatically make the caster evil, but he's at best neutral).

[toapat]

5e provides an explanation in the MM - creating the phylactery requires the sacrifice of a soul to it - and in order to avoid devolving into a demilich - souls must regularly be fed into the phylactery, which destroys them.

So basically, the best thing one could do is summon and sacrifice the souls of fiends to power your lichdom?

I figured part of the unspeakably evil act involved destroying the sacrificee's soul. When it comes down to it, if clerics could bestow immortality onto themselves then just Undo the effect using a spell, then its not unspeakably evil.

Really the only thing i really feel even follows such is: Inflicting on and prolonging the suffering of something both incapable of comprehending what is being done to it and unable to retaliate in a meaningful way. Then either Destroying the soul Or Shackling the mind in a conscious state where interaction is impossible Or condemning a soul to a plane which it is incapable of properly comprehending.

[Segev]

First off, alignment tangent, I disagree with the OP that a paladin could ever have to commit an act of evil to stop a greater evil. Such apparent dilemmas have always turned out to be false, with some fashion the Paladin could act without being evil. He may fail, and a great evil may yet be done, but he will not have done it. I also disagree that refusing to sacrifice himself is inherently evil. It is neutral, and it is a bit out of character for what most expect of the shining-beacon-of-selflessness that paladins usually are (supposed to be), but it is not evil. He did not kill the 25 innocent villagers. Now, it might be a failure of duty, since he has the duty to protect the town.

Now, on to liches: they must perform an act so evil that you cannot possibly be good and justify it to yourself. It would take a huge change of heart for them to redeem themselves, because they would have to overcome the corruption of spirit which made them believe that their act could ever be justified. "I'll do this, then go and do enough good to make up for it," makes it harder to repent of your wrongs, because you have to come to the conclusion that no, whatever you do now, it does NOT make up for what you did before. You sinned, and you must truly repent of it. To the point that, if you were given the option to go back, you would not do it, even knowing that all you've done since will be wiped out by your timely demise.

So yes, a lich can become good...but it's going to be harder for him than nearly any other kind of being, because of what he has to overcome in his own unbeating heart.

[Heliomance]

General Alignment Debate
1) Separate from the context involved, would the action be considered evil?
2) Who gains from the action's success, who loses from its failure, and in what ways?
3) Who loses from the action's success, who gains from its failure, and in what ways?

Let's show an example: a villain captures a small town, as well as the paladin who defends it. The paladin is given a choice: kill 10 innocent townmembers, and the villain will release the whole village; refuse, and the villain will kill 25 other innocent townmembers before he leaves; finally, if the paladin kills himself, the villain will leave without doing anybody any harm. The villain can be trusted to keep his word. The paladin can kill ten innocent to save the rest, or condemn 25 innocents, but keep his own hands directly clean. The trick is that either action is evil in nature: whether actively killing innocent civilians, or allowing innocent civilians to die through inaction. The only morally sound choice would be to sacrifice himself. Of course, this is a rather extreme example, but it serves the purpose.


Sacrificing himself is not a moral choice in that scenario. Arguably, it's the worst of all the choices. A Paladin, as a powerful champion for Good, is not expendable. By the Paladin killing himself, he's also killing every single person whose life he would otherwise later go on to save. That number is almost certain to be higher than 25. The right choice is to reject the villain's deal and save everyone. If the villain is powerful enough that doing so is genuinely not an option, or at least not without a large civilian death toll, then the best option remaining is to admit to the villagers that he is powerless to help, and sorrowfully ask for volunteers to die that the rest might live.

As regards Lichdom, 2nd Ed described the ritual needed. I've got it lying around somewhere; I'll post it when I get home.

[Ettina]

In other words, it's left vague so there can be no question that doing so drops you to Evil. It doesn't matter how many kittens you've saved, how many damsels rescued, how many wrongs righted, it's Evil enough to wash it all out in terms of Alignment.

Mind you nothing says you can't then spend the rest of your unlife righting wrongs, undistressing damsels, and getting kittens out of trees. You'll just never be able to avoid Paladins being able to Smite you and Holy weapons giving you grief.

I suspect even a Good-aligned undead would have trouble with that sort of thing, simply because undead (regardless of alignment) are harmed by positive energy and healed by negative energy.

Incidentally, in a story I'm writing (not set in the D&D universe, but with some similarities to the magic system), I have a good lich. She was a nice girl with an interest in dark magic, who developed a terminal illness and refused to die. She found a spell to turn herself into a lich, but it required a human sacrifice. Then she realized there was nothing stopping the sacrifice and the lich from being the same person...

[Pan151]

As to the zombies and skeletons, if left uncontrolled, they will attack people.

No, uncontrolled zombies and skeletons do nothing unless they've been ordered to. So, unless their last owner gave them the order to attack people, they will not attack people.

[Segev]

To be fair, zombies and skeletons can be animated by "pervasive evil" in some plot-related circumstances, which gives them the order to "kill everything you come across" for all intents and purposes as part of their creation. Anything taking control of them and giving them different orders would override that, and they wouldn't inherently go back to the original order, though, so you're still techincally right.

I post this mostly to point out that the "graveyard full of attacking zombies" tends to happen spontaneously due to some sort of evil...thing...going on. It doesn't make zombies and skeletons inherently evil, it just gives those who don't know better reason to assume they are.

[georgie_leech]

To be fair, zombies and skeletons can be animated by "pervasive evil" in some plot-related circumstances, which gives them the order to "kill everything you come across" for all intents and purposes as part of their creation. Anything taking control of them and giving them different orders would override that, and they wouldn't inherently go back to the original order, though, so you're still techincally right.

I post this mostly to point out that the "graveyard full of attacking zombies" tends to happen spontaneously due to some sort of evil...thing...going on. It doesn't make zombies and skeletons inherently evil, it just gives those who don't know better reason to assume they are.

Quibble: One would expect the universal forces of Good and Evil to know better in this case (Detect Evil etc.) even if the peasants can't, but they seem to view them in the same way.

[SimonMoon6]

There really should be a reason, some cost, that every person in the world isn't lining up to become undead. You know, aside from the shriveling and questionable formaldehyde scent.

I thought it was reincarnate + wish (back to former body).

[illyahr]

Minor quibble with OP: Negative energy isn't inherently evil. RAW both supports and rejects this but it is supported by fluff and rejected by crunch.

Support: All Undead are Evil because negative energy is evil. Thus, anything created from it is evil.

Reject: Inflict series of spells and the harm spell (negative energy channeling) do not have the [Evil] descriptor. Support statement fails due to premise being wrong.

Sentient undead have free will and the process for making them is evil. They may start as evil but, as they have free will, can change their alignment.

Mindless undead have no will of their own. Any evil about them is caused by their masters, much as a puppet has no evil beyond what the crafter imbues it with.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Support: All Undead are Evil because negative energy is evil. Thus, anything created from it is evil. Never actually said in the material, its a presumption when people confuse the evil magic in an undead's creation and automation with the negative energy the magic is manipulating to provide a source of power.
Its not that negative energy is evil, its that using magic to twist it into the creation of unlife is evil.



Mindless undead have no will of their own. Any evil about them is caused by their masters, much as a puppet has no evil beyond what the crafter imbues it with.
Reject: While skeleton's and zombies are mindless creatures they are still created via unholy magics either animate dead or some other evil presence. Without a will of there own there is no counterbalance for the evil in their creation.

The skeleton template it self even states. "While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force." So there is something in mindless undead beyond negative energy, some evil presence that gives them some instinctive ability to fight.


I thought it was reincarnate + wish (back to former body).
Wish would restore you to you're original form which is presumably is very old, so not that effective. Furthermore reincarnate states the subject "recalls the majority of its former life and form" This would imply that the subject is not quite the same person when they come back, so someone looking for immortality might consider that just another form of death after two or three reincarnations.

Lastly Druids with there belief in the natural order etc etc... probably can't be trusted to reincarnate you to avoid death by old age.

——
Here's the thing about Liches, you give up life. Remember Barbosa's quote from Pirates of the Caribbean. "I feel nothing. Not the wind on my face nor the spray of the sea. Nor the warmth of a woman's flesh. " That's what being undead would be like, you don't feel things. So the question is why would you give up so many the things that make life worth living for immortality?

And isn't like people doubt the existence of the afterlife. So then why seek immortality?

[SimonMoon6]

And isn't like people doubt the existence of the afterlife. So then why seek immortality?

Well, if you're evil, you might realize that the afterlife you're heading towards is something you want to avoid.

Of course, that then begs the question, "Why be evil in the first place?" After all, if you *really* have free will (and are smarter than a rock), you'd want to avoid the afterlife that an evil person gets. So, you need to avoid being evil. But, free will's probably not that free. Some people will just be evil even if it's in their best interest not to be evil. (And some people are dumb.)

[Dalebert]

"Shades of gray" will always be a house rule in my games because black and white notions of morality are so cartoonishly stereotypical and boring. The idea of redemption is also a very powerful and moving storyline. Consider Return of the Jedi, Once Upon a Time, Angel & Spike from Buffy, all the villains in Farscape pretty much. I remember a DM who was fond of making villains who were fallen angels and became demons. I immediately thought how interesting it could be to have it go the other way. Of course it's not an easy path. That's the nature of good--picking the right path as opposed to the easy one. But I created a character who was a succubus who had redeemed herself enough that the powers of good intervened and transformed her powers. Now she could heal people but she had to be intimate with them to do it.

I already have plans to introduce a basically goodish/neutralish/at least not evilish lich in my game as an NPC. He probably did do some unspeakably evil acts and he probably was clearly evil at one time but now he's changing. He probably had a bundle of justifications for his actions as people are prone to. Anyway, it should be more fun than treating everything in such black and white terms.

I have a gravewalker in a PF game who's basically good. It's an alignmentless game. He's been convinced by his poppet, which he believes to be his dead mother's spirit come back to guide him, that undead are spirits trapped in dead bodies and having their will usurped by evil forces. He believes he's freeing them from those forces temporarily with his necromancy so they can listen to reason and have a chance for redemption of their spirits in some eventual afterlife. He sees mindless undead as being occupied by very confused spirits trapped in a limbo state. They too need an opportunity to engage in acts of redemption (by serving his goals, which are good) so that they can eventually be freed from their limbo state of existence.

[Zanos]

And isn't like people doubt the existence of the afterlife. So then why seek immortality?
"Better to Reign in Hell than Serve in Heaven."

Unless you're a powerful cleric most people get the same deal in their deities afterlife. After wielding the power to bend reality to your will, would you really want to give that up because you were too old?

[Spore]

I propose a simple solution. Liches are not evil by intent but by the magic that holds them in this life. So being NE is actually just a rule and has nothing to do with the intent of the (non-player) character. For the rules book they HAVE to be evil. Because "holy" spells should hit them very hard. Because channeling "evil" negative energy heals them. They are evil.

But they're the other kind of evil a warrior becomes when he defends his home town from marauders to save his family. Only he is enjoying the killing and needlessly torturing his victims.

Most characters are evil by intent not by nature.
Undead are not evil by intent BUT by nature.

[Pan151]

Well, if you're evil, you might realize that the afterlife you're heading towards is something you want to avoid.

Of course, that then begs the question, "Why be evil in the first place?" After all, if you *really* have free will (and are smarter than a rock), you'd want to avoid the afterlife that an evil person gets. So, you need to avoid being evil. But, free will's probably not that free. Some people will just be evil even if it's in their best interest not to be evil. (And some people are dumb.)

Evil people want to avoid the afterlife not because the evil afterlives are crappy, but because ALL afterlifes are crappy. The non-evil ones are even worse - you become the same useless husk of your former self, but in the Lower Planes you at least get to be the boss if you're worthy enough...


I propose a simple solution. Liches are not evil by intent but by the magic that holds them in this life. So being NE is actually just a rule and has nothing to do with the intent of the (non-player) character. For the rules book they HAVE to be evil. Because "holy" spells should hit them very hard. Because channeling "evil" negative energy heals them. They are evil.

But they're the other kind of evil a warrior becomes when he defends his home town from marauders to save his family. Only he is enjoying the killing and needlessly torturing his victims.

Most characters are evil by intent not by nature.
Undead are not evil by intent BUT by nature.

If this that you're proposing was a valid theory, then Liches would have the [Evil] subtype.

Istead, the rules say that they're just regular, conscious choice evil.

(This is the same problem with all other undead, that are described as consciously evil - ignoring that half of them have no consciousness to begin with)

[Dalebert]

I propose a simple solution. Liches are not evil by intent but by the magic that holds them in this life. So being NE is actually just a rule and has nothing to do with the intent of the (non-player) character.

I'm okay with that, I think. There are evil forces animating their otherwise rotten corpses. They automatically read as evil according to detect spells and such. However, they can choose to do good if they want. This could be a constant source of drama for them--the conflicts within them between their inherent nature and desires to the contrary. That could make for some interesting character arcs.

[StoneCipher]

A mage becomes a lich by means of necromancy, using a magical receptacle called a Phylactery to store the lich's soul. In some sources the method of becoming a lich is referred to as the Ritual of Becoming or Ceremony of Endless Night.[citation needed] The process is often described as requiring the creation and consumption of a deadly potion, the Elixir of Defilation, which is to be drunk on a full moon; although the exact details of the potion are described differently in various sources, the creation of the potion almost universally entails acts of utter evil, such as using as an ingredient the blood of an infant slain by the potential sorcerer's own hand, or other, similarly vile components. The potion invariably kills the drinker but if the process is successful it rises again some days later as a Lich. Occasionally, this metamorphosis occurs by accident as a result of life-prolonging magic.

I imagine that there are different processes for any true phylactery wielding good Liches.

[atemu1234]

When it comes down to the "If Afterlife then why Immortality" argument, I'd say it's because those afterlives are nice, but some people prefer the world. After all, if you're after ultimate arcane power, you probably won't find it in the heavens. But on earth...

And/Or you're evil and don't want to be tortured for eternity.

[Rater202]

I agree that undead in general aren't necessarily evil, but the 3.5 lich explicitly says that "the process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil." It doesn't elaborate, but I think most people interpret that to mean that the ritual involves human sacrifice or something along those lines. At BEST, they'd have to be an ends justify the means kind of character.


As said in the OP, the process of creating a phylactery is always left vague. I think it would require an explanation of what it is to define them as evil. Since none is provided, what are we to assume?

While the 3.5 lich does get described as evil, there were a few books describing variants. Faerun gave elves a path to becoming a religious good lich, and I remember somewhere seeing a variant for a very catch-all good lich. The latter seems very mary-sue, but is understandable at the same time.

The best hope in Pathfinder is the planet Eox, which is inhabited almost entirely by liches. I don't think it would be fair to describe ANY of them as good, but it seems unfair to call them evil, either, when they share this knowledge freely to any who desire it, and they themselves are the only reason why their race survived the death of their planet.

Earlier editions described the process of becoming a lich to involve ritualized suicide in the form of drinking a toxic potion. one of the ingrediants of that potion was the rendered fat of a baby that the lich to be personally murdered.

Granted, Libris Mortis has a section on variant undead, including a "Good Lich", Archlich's have been around for a while as none evil Liches, and certain settings have non-evil Elf Liches who become so to serve as guardians, and the Dread Necromancer becoms a Lich slowly over the course of 20 levels with no such ritualized suicide(And can be neutral in addition to evil) so essentially I've always generalized that the "Unspeakably Evil" Lich is just the most common variant.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I always imagined lichdom to basically be the path Voldemort chose, with "horcrux" acting as a stand-in for "phylactery".

[Baroncognito]

The Archlich? (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Archlich) It's still a lich, it's still called a lich, and the method of becoming one is described as "nearly identical," so I can't imagine anything "unspeakably good" could EVER be considered "nearly identical" to "unspeakably evil."

I suppose it really depends upon the projection you're using. There's probably a mapping from the alignment chart to a sphere that could get you such a result.

[Spore]

I always imagined lichdom to basically be the path Voldemort chose, with "horcrux" acting as a stand-in for "phylactery".

Is Voldemort undead though? The (film) visuals fit quite well. Does this mean he has been killed by the recoil curse he tried on Potter?

I never read the last three books, I just want a bit of insight to understand that argument.

[Rater202]

Is Voldemort undead though? The (film) visuals fit quite well. Does this mean he has been killed by the recoil curse he tried on Potter?

I never read the last three books, I just want a bit of insight to understand that argument.

It's similar, but no. He never officially died.

His body was destroyed, but his soul didn't pass on, and his new body, being made of fresh flesh and blood, is also alive.

As Hagrid said, he didn't have enough human in him to die.

[illyahr]

Never actually said in the material, its a presumption when people confuse the evil magic in an undead's creation and automation with the negative energy the magic is manipulating to provide a source of power.
Its not that negative energy is evil, its that using magic to twist it into the creation of unlife is evil.

Which is what I said in the very next point.



Reject: While skeleton's and zombies are mindless creatures they are still created via unholy magics either animate dead or some other evil presence. Without a will of there own there is no counterbalance for the evil in their creation.

The skeleton template it self even states. "While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force." So there is something in mindless undead beyond negative energy, some evil presence that gives them some instinctive ability to fight.

This is assuming that the creation of them was evil. I have seen characters who viewed corpses as no more than discarded shells. The soul is the important part, not the body. They view animating dead as no more invasive as moving into an abandoned home. So again, the only evil in them is what is placed there by their creator, not inherent in the undead itself.

Also, cunning is a function of intelligence, which skeletons don't have. They basically just said that even though skeletons can't think, they can think.

[Lord Vukodlak]

This is assuming that the creation of them was evil. I have seen characters who viewed corpses as no more than discarded shells. The soul is the important part, not the body. They view animating dead as no more invasive as moving into an abandoned home. So again, the only evil in them is what is placed there by their creator, not inherent in the undead itself.
Find me a RAW method of creating undead that isn't evil, doesn't matter that the 'character' doesn't view animate dead as being invasive. The spell they use is still evil, which taints the creation.


Also, cunning is a function of intelligence, which skeletons don't have. They basically just said that even though skeletons can't think, they can think. Spider's are mindless but can still lay ambushes, stalk prey, which is a cunning of its own. In the undead's case its simply the ability to use weapons.

A mindless creature is simply purely instinctual, a wolves and other pack animals would be smart enough to coordinate attacks or move to flank prey. A pack of zombies or monstrous spiders would not. (unless commanded by some intelligence).

[StoneCipher]

I believe the difference between a good lich and an evil lich is that good liches are unnaturally extended past their lifespan for a greater purpose, usually as a guardian. Evil liches commit suicide and are reanimated for their own purposes.

[hookbill]

excellent read... my thoughts..


I agree that it is possible that it is not as black and white and good/evil.. what about a baelnorn.. they are created (gifted) but not all are without a phylactery.. also i'm on the last book of the "Evris Cale Trilogy" (late I know) but the Soujourner states when he's draining the deva and demons (they ask why) he says that "it just is" he's killed, wiped out thousands, etc, but there was no good/evil, it was just a necessity to move his plan forward in order to obtain what he needed to cast that spell. it wasn't out of mallice or spite, it was just needed.

Society defines what is good or evil I would think.. some say if you were wronged you can kill to seek your honor back,. others killing is an absolute evil, etc...


on the skeleton point of being imparted with a bit O' evil from its creator.... what if it was raised by a neutral cleric, or good that had to do so out of complete need (insert god given power to do so...)

would then that skelly go around handing out waterskins after a disaster out of "instinct"?

[Xelbiuj]

Meh, I think of their existence alone as a sin and transgression against good. Can't redeem yourself while you're alive undead if you continue you existence.

Also, some crimes, especially unspeakably evil one, just aren't forgivable.

Good liches, like succubus paladins, is just fluff I hand wave away.

[Dalebert]

I believe the difference between a good lich and an evil lich is that good liches are unnaturally extended past their lifespan for a greater purpose, usually as a guardian. Evil liches commit suicide and are reanimated for their own purposes.

Why would the difference between a good or evil lich necessarily be any different that what separates good and evil people? A lich who has decided to stop behaving in an evil manner has perhaps simply decided that he's done all the selfish things he wants to do and now he wants to do some good in the world and start following some set of morals that are goodish.

The details around lichdom and how you become a lich, how you stay that way, etc., are vague enough that any particular DM will have to fill some in if they come up. You can certainly decide, as a DM, that lichs have to kill babies on a regular basis or you can just as easily decide that they did some horrible things to become a lich and now they're done. I think the latter makes for more interesting story potential.

Side note: Didn't that crappy D&D movie have a lich NPC who was helping the PCs out on some mission?

[illyahr]

on the skeleton point of being imparted with a bit O' evil from its creator.... what if it was raised by a neutral cleric, or good that had to do so out of complete need (insert god given power to do so...)

would then that skelly go around handing out waterskins after a disaster out of "instinct"?

Exactly what I had in mind. I had a L/N Halfling Necromancer who used skeletons as laborers. They dug graves (he was a grave tender, it had a kind of symmetry that I liked.) and a skeleton pony that pulled his cart of funeral supplies. As basically a mortician, he had max ranks in Know(Religion) so he could perform funeral rites of any race he encountered.

Even though he used mindless undead as tools, he absolutely hated anyone who extended their life unnaturally or was brought back to life. He hated equally anyone who became a sentient undead or was brought back with a Raise Dead (or similar) spell. He was fine with the Druid's reincarnation spell, though.

He eventually crafted an epic spell that killed a person every time someone was brought back against the flow of souls.

[StoneCipher]

Why would the difference between a good or evil lich necessarily be any different that what separates good and evil people? A lich who has decided to stop behaving in an evil manner has perhaps simply decided that he's done all the selfish things he wants to do and now he wants to do some good in the world and start following some set of morals that are goodish.

The details around lichdom and how you become a lich, how you stay that way, etc., are vague enough that any particular DM will have to fill some in if they come up. You can certainly decide, as a DM, that lichs have to kill babies on a regular basis or you can just as easily decide that they did some horrible things to become a lich and now they're done. I think the latter makes for more interesting story potential.

Side note: Didn't that crappy D&D movie have a lich NPC who was helping the PCs out on some mission?

Perhaps then, as a consensus of the good gods, they define undead to be particularly evil at any point in time unless it was by their doing that they became undead.

But that raises further questions in the realm of D&D to alignment as a whole.

Who ACTUALLY decides what is evil and what is good? Is it the gods? One god? St. Cuthbert/Helm?

[Dalebert]

There are so many ways to live forever in D&D. You can magic jar someone, kill your old body, and then Limited Wish to cast reincarnate on it. Now presumably when the magic jar ends, you go back into your new body.

Is it within the power of Wish to change your race (an instant change, preferable to permanent/dispellable)? That's assuming you don't like what you come back as, which seems likely enough.

[georgie_leech]

The details around lichdom and how you become a lich, how you stay that way, etc., are vague enough that any particular DM will have to fill some in if they come up. You can certainly decide, as a DM, that lichs have to kill babies on a regular basis or you can just as easily decide that they did some horrible things to become a lich and now they're done. I think the latter makes for more interesting story potential.



Or apparently you can just invert the whole thing (http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/811/) (Potential LFG spoilers ahoy!)

[Rickshaw]

Well if we're throwing out our own ideas of how liches are created, I have a dood I'm proud of coming up with :D

So in my mind, To become a lich means you have aspects of both corporeal and incorporeal undead. Becoming corporeal dead seems straightforward enough (take corpse -> insert negative energy). But to become incorporeal means something else. Incorporeal undead come from things like violent death, etc.

So this high profile necromancer joined in with a holy war on the side of good. Lots of battles were own with his help, etc. the priests of course, didn't like it, and eventually betrayed, framed, and executed him. Boom- tragic violent death. But since he'd done the lich prep work, he came back as a lich and can now have his merry lich time up in the frozen northern wastes trying to harness the power of the auroras to.... Well whatever I digress.

In my mind I liked it :)

As far as the pathfinder process goes, I know they do some pretty strong hinting at it in one of the rise of the rune lord adventure books, the skinsaw murders or something.

ok so it looks like they list a few steps via stained glass windows, because nothing says dramatic like window pictures...

So he made his phyla trey from 4 Long lived monsters
then there is the apotheosis formula, which apparently often consists of vampire breath, belladonna, scorpion poison, the tongues of death wing moths (odd, because I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure moths have probosci not tongues..) and the heart of a maiden slain by poison



So it looks like there's some evil there. The murder of a maiden (a stereotypical symbol of purity) also it looks like there's some suiciding going on in that potion of apotheosis too.

Another thing to consider is the absolutely bat-crap, pants-on-head insane that most liches are portrayed as. Now insanity does not exactly equal evil, but certainly the acts that such insanity can lead to can be quite evil.

[Dalebert]

If you want to know about Lichs, just play an undead in World of Warcraft and go on some racial quests.

[Lonely Tylenol]

It's similar, but no. He never officially died.

His body was destroyed, but his soul didn't pass on, and his new body, being made of fresh flesh and blood, is also alive.

As Hagrid said, he didn't have enough human in him to die.

The thing is, though, everything you just said here accurately describes both Voldemort and Liches, except that the former's body is made of flesh and blood, which you might be able to emulate with Gentle Repose?

[Gulnar]

5e provides an explanation in the MM - creating the phylactery requires the sacrifice of a soul to it - and in order to avoid devolving into a demilich - souls must regularly be fed into the phylactery, which destroys them.

One could argue that since souls are not finite (in the sense that they get continually replaced by birthing of new creatures) Liches and Demi-liches act as "soul janitors", preventing the multiverse from being clogged with souls, acting similary to how act the planes for old enough petitioners (who get absorbed by their home plane after enough time).
In a twisted way, it's "less soldiers for the blood war" (even though a lot of those souls wouldn't end as evil petitioners, one could argue that a society that spawn a demilich tend more toward general evilhood than toward goodhood, and as such, as a natural hunting ground for said demilich, would provide generally evil souls).

[illyahr]

One could argue that since souls are not finite (in the sense that they get continually replaced by birthing of new creatures) Liches and Demi-liches act as "soul janitors", preventing the multiverse from being clogged with souls, acting similary to how act the planes for old enough petitioners (who get absorbed by their home plane after enough time).
In a twisted way, it's "less soldiers for the blood war" (even though a lot of those souls wouldn't end as evil petitioners, one could argue that a society that spawn a demilich tend more toward general evilhood than toward goodhood, and as such, as a natural hunting ground for said demilich, would provide generally evil souls).

Devil's advocate here: if souls are infinite and just keep getting recycled, however, then there are a finite number of them. If a lich has to destroy souls in order to stay "alive" they are effectively destabilizing the cosmology by using up a non-renewable resource.

[Rater202]

The thing is, though, everything you just said here accurately describes both Voldemort and Liches, except that the former's body is made of flesh and blood, which you might be able to emulate with Gentle Repose?

...close, but I still hae to say no.

He was never officially dead, and when he got his new body, he was once again a living, breathing organism.

So he was never dead, and was never undead

He went from Living-disembodied non-ghost spirit-possessed homunculus-living.

[atemu1234]

...close, but I still hae to say no.

He was never officially dead, and when he got his new body, he was once again a living, breathing organism.

So he was never dead, and was never undead

He went from Living-disembodied non-ghost spirit-possessed homunculus-living.

What are spirits but undead? Also, RAW-wise, was probably closer to a shadow than a spirit or ghost.
Edit: I mean his disembodied spirit.

[Rater202]

What are spirits but undead? Also, RAW-wise, was probably closer to a shadow than a spirit or ghost.
Edit: I mean his disembodied spirit.

Ghosts are Dead.

He quite explicitly wasn't dead while disembodied.

[atemu1234]

Ghosts are Dead.

He quite explicitly wasn't dead while disembodied.

Flavorfully, this isn't a problem. He didn't have a body, so he had no heartbeat or brain activity, and thus was clinically dead. Frankly, by the definition used in the harry potter universe for Voldy's condition, ghosts would also have not been dead (D&D ghosts, not HP ghosts).

[Rickshaw]

Even though I feel like the whole voldemort thing is a bit off topic, I'd like to weigh in and say he was more disembodied as per magic jar, and in need of a fresh body, and idk if your spirit reads as undead in that instance. RAW doesn't seem to have anything to say about that.

However, the Harry potter d20 system doesn't seem to be as compatible to pathfinder as one would like... :P

[Rater202]

Flavorfully, this isn't a problem. He didn't have a body, so he had no heartbeat or brain activity, and thus was clinically dead. Frankly, by the definition used in the harry potter universe for Voldy's condition, ghosts would also have not been dead (D&D ghosts, not HP ghosts).

He wasn't dead as far as magic is concerend, and that's what matters.

Ghosts meanwhile, are dead as far as magic goes, both HP Ghosts and D&D Ghosts

[Rickshaw]

Btw I would like to point out that this topic has been discussed before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?354119-Is-a-lich-necessarily-evil&highlight=Dark+speech)

[Emperor Moth]

Another thing to consider is the absolutely bat-crap, pants-on-head insane that most liches are portrayed as. Now insanity does not exactly equal evil, but certainly the acts that such insanity can lead to can be quite evil.Refer to my crazy spiel about the Nine Tongued Worm around the middle of page 1. I'm a fan of making such knowledge the domain of madness. Lichdom breaks many of the rules, after all, so I think that a simple journey through knowledge of the undead would never lead you to the secret that allows liches to circumvent every curse. Such knowledge would surely be so absurd, so utterly mad that mere comprehension of it causes you to go mad yourself. Where better to find such knowledge than the realm of madness itself?