Changes to Monsters from Previous Editions

[Aron Times]

I had a blast reading through the Monster Manual and its wonderful art and the return of monster roleplaying information that was mostly absent in 4e books. It really helps me, as a DM, roleplay monsters appropriately when I'm told that zombies, for example, have no sense of self-preservation and will walk off a second-story window to attack the yummy halfling below, or how demons can't be permanently killed outside the Abyss and thus behave with a sense of indestructibility on the material plane. Perhaps one of my favorite changes is the mechanics of lichdom.

In previous editions, liches were hunted by good characters because they were Evil with a capital E and... that's it. From a narrative perspective, they didn't pose an immediate threat to the populace. They didn't have the desire to consume human flesh/blood/lifeforce/whatever, and were completely free from the physical needs of food, water, and air. They had all the perks of immortality sans the mortal flesh, which they could easily bypass through creative use of Magic Jar or Clone spells. Lichdom was pretty much low-maintenance immortality.

In D&D 5e, on the other hand, they are a much bigger threat to innocent life, since they have to periodically devour souls to maintain their immortality. Failing to feed their soul hunger results in degeneration into a demilich, which is a Fate Worse than Death for someone who did everything he or she could to stave off mortality. Demiliches lose all of their spellcasting ability and lay asleep most of the time, only waking up to devour hapless mortals that disturb their rest. After said unlucky meatbags are dead, the demilich returns to dormancy.

5e lichdom is similar to how lichdom works in the New World of Darkness, specifically, Mage: The Awakening. The Tremere are a faction of mages who retain eternal youth by devouring souls. Unlike D&D liches, Tremere look and function like mortals and need food, water, and air. The only difference is that as long as they get their monthly recommended dose of mortal souls, they do not age. For this reason, they are outcasts in mage society.

So, what other interesting changes to monsters from previous editions have you noticed in 5e?

[Vizzerdrix]

3.5 Rust Monster: Cute and cuddly. Feed them all the magic things!

5th Rust monster: Icky. Swat it with a news paper.

[Crake]

I think the biggest change that hit me was that many outsiders lost the ability to greater teleport at will. For me that was a big part of their schtick, if you weren't fully prepared to face them, they'd just teleport away when they were low, then maybe get some healing from some cultist or whatever and teleport back a few rounds later. It just makes them feel less impressive, they can no longer be wherever they please at a moment's notice.

[dead_but_dreaming]

I had a blast reading through the Monster Manual and its wonderful art and the return of monster roleplaying information that was mostly absent in 4e books. It really helps me, as a DM, roleplay monsters appropriately when I'm told that zombies, for example, have no sense of self-preservation and will walk off a second-story window to attack the yummy halfling below, or how demons can't be permanently killed outside the Abyss and thus behave with a sense of indestructibility on the material plane. Perhaps one of my favorite changes is the mechanics of lichdom.

In previous editions, liches were hunted by good characters because they were Evil with a capital E and... that's it. From a narrative perspective, they didn't pose an immediate threat to the populace. They didn't have the desire to consume human flesh/blood/lifeforce/whatever, and were completely free from the physical needs of food, water, and air. They had all the perks of immortality sans the mortal flesh, which they could easily bypass through creative use of Magic Jar or Clone spells. Lichdom was pretty much low-maintenance immortality.

In D&D 5e, on the other hand, they are a much bigger threat to innocent life, since they have to periodically devour souls to maintain their immortality. Failing to feed their soul hunger results in degeneration into a demilich, which is a Fate Worse than Death for someone who did everything he or she could to stave off mortality. Demiliches lose all of their spellcasting ability and lay asleep most of the time, only waking up to devour hapless mortals that disturb their rest. After said unlucky meatbags are dead, the demilich returns to dormancy.

5e lichdom is similar to how lichdom works in the New World of Darkness, specifically, Mage: The Awakening. The Tremere are a faction of mages who retain eternal youth by devouring souls. Unlike D&D liches, Tremere look and function like mortals and need food, water, and air. The only difference is that as long as they get their monthly recommended dose of mortal souls, they do not age. For this reason, they are outcasts in mage society.

So, what other interesting changes to monsters from previous editions have you noticed in 5e?

I actually, specifically don't like this change! It is now impossible to be a non-evil lich (unless you houserule). I always liked the idea of a nonevil lich and I don't think there should be anything intrinsically evil about undeath. Anyone agrees?

[EvilAnagram]

Wait, how did 4e not have role playing info? The Monster Manuals had tons of fluff.

[Eslin]

I actually, specifically don't like this change! It is now impossible to be a non-evil lich (unless you houserule). I always liked the idea of a nonevil lich and I don't think there should be anything intrinsically evil about undeath. Anyone agrees?

Agreed completely. Lichs worked perfectly fine when they were just evil bastards because they were evil, choice is scarier. Xykon's not evil because he's a lich, he's an evil bastard who is always a lich. Making lichdom inherently evil seems kind of pointless.

[Inevitability]

I actually, specifically don't like this change! It is now impossible to be a non-evil lich (unless you houserule). I always liked the idea of a nonevil lich and I don't think there should be anything intrinsically evil about undeath. Anyone agrees?

We'll just have to wait a year at most until the first non-evil lich variant appears. No big deal. Unless then, houserule and refluff.

[Aron Times]

Wait, how did 4e not have role playing info? The Monster Manuals had tons of fluff.

But not enough information about monster AI and themes. Sure, you could come up with your own monster behavior routines, but that should come standard with the Monster Manual.

[EvilAnagram]

But not enough information about monster AI and themes. Sure, you could come up with your own monster behavior routines, but that should come standard with the Monster Manual.

...but it did have monster behavior info...

[Shining Wrath]

I always disliked the idea of the non-evil lich except as an NPC. Lichdom was too appealing to too many munchkins, "I'll become a lich, but not evil!". There was always that bit about the process of becoming a lich being "unspeakably evil", and yet I've seen people argue that you could commit one unspeakably Evil act and still remain Good, or at least Neutral. And the underlying motive always seemed to be that being a 3.5 god-wizard wasn't enough power, they needed to be an immortal undead on top of that. YMMV, but what I've seen is non-evil lich = final form of munchkin.

Anyway, you've forcibly removed your soul and stuck it into a phylactery using an unspeakably evil process. Given that, I don't see too much problem with also having to eat souls to keep your body and soul apart.

As to undead always being evil, I think that's because they draw the power that keeps them going from the Negative Energy Plane, which is also always evil. In 5e there are two sorts of not-necessarily-evil undead; the ghost, and the revenant. Both of which are not created by magic, but by a soul needing to take care of some business before going on to its reward.

If you want a non-evil undead, you need to come up with a power source that isn't the Negative Energy Plane. Homebrew with enthusiasm! Off the top of my head, I propose elemental undead - have zombies that draw their power from Air / Earth / Fire / Water, which grants each type a specific feature or ability the others don't get. And they are indistinguishable one from another unless you make a DC 15 Wisdom(Perception) check.

[hymer]

Agreed completely. Lichs worked perfectly fine when they were just evil bastards because they were evil, choice is scarier. Xykon's not evil because he's a lich, he's an evil bastard who is always a lich. Making lichdom inherently evil seems kind of pointless.

It was a choice to become a lich in the first place. I like the idea that lichdom means sealing yourself to evil for eternity. I rather dislike the wishy-washy approach where cool monsters must have a non-evil option - look what's happened to vampires. As for the whole 'must eat souls' thing, meh. Too much like the aforementioned vampire for my taste.

I'm generally favourably disposed. The beholder as a specific example looks interesting. The whole 'must use random eye stalks, but use more and more the more enemies they fight' is an interesting mechanic.
I don't think I like that the average goblin or kobold is now on par with (or more dangerous than) the average human guard. I like pathetic hordes of irredeemably evil little snots.

[DrBurr]

But not enough information about monster AI and themes. Sure, you could come up with your own monster behavior routines, but that should come standard with the Monster Manual.

Each monster started with a brief description of what it is, where it came from and, if applicable, its society. Lore Checks to fill in the details and each Stat block had its own tactical section for combat. How is that not a Monster Behavior Routine?

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I actually, specifically don't like this change! It is now impossible to be a non-evil lich (unless you houserule). I always liked the idea of a nonevil lich and I don't think there should be anything intrinsically evil about undeath. Anyone agrees?

Benevolent, enlightened, tyrannical Lich is in control of a city or nation. All criminals which commit crimes deserving of death are given to Glorious Leader, May His Rule Never Be Broken, to ensure his continued benevolence. The Lich is a god-king, and depending on how he rules, can be any alignment.

[INDYSTAR188]

YMMV, but what I've seen is non-evil lich = final form of munchkin.

This has been my experience as well. I don't know if undeath is inherently evil but the lich process, as written, is certainly. I like the change that they have to consume souls as I think it's a fairly understandable drawback for having all that power.

[MadGrady]

Benevolent, enlightened, tyrannical Lich is in control of a city or nation. All criminals which commit crimes deserving of death are given to Glorious Leader, May His Rule Never Be Broken, to ensure his continued benevolence. The Lich is a god-king, and depending on how he rules, can be any alignment.

I really like this suggestion. It might just make its way into my next campaign. Hehehe


As for changes, I was not a huge fan of the change of the appearance of the Kraken (always been a fan of the more giant squid type), but I DO love the background information provided for it. I get that the appearance is more in line with the original Greek idea for it was, and that is definitely cool (Ray Harryhausen's Clash of the Titans = one of my favorite movies ever). I don't hate the art, but I don't love it either.

That being said, this version of the Kraken WILL be in my next campaign muah-ha-ha-ha :smallbiggrin:

[Magus Clash]

I don't think there should be anything intrinsically evil about undeath. Anyone agrees?
Someone probably agrees, but I don't.
Necromancy should be dangerous and forbidden because it makes for better stories that way. There must be good arguments for and against a mage choosing to animate a pile of brittle bones instead of a clay statue, or else there's no moral choice and that mage's specialty doesn't inform me of his attitude towards magic.
You make undead worse, narratively speaking, by portraying them as magic robots because there are already magic robots in the game. Let undead be undead!

[Aron Times]

I always disliked the idea of the non-evil lich except as an NPC. Lichdom was too appealing to too many munchkins, "I'll become a lich, but not evil!". There was always that bit about the process of becoming a lich being "unspeakably evil", and yet I've seen people argue that you could commit one unspeakably Evil act and still remain Good, or at least Neutral. And the underlying motive always seemed to be that being a 3.5 god-wizard wasn't enough power, they needed to be an immortal undead on top of that. YMMV, but what I've seen is non-evil lich = final form of munchkin.

Anyway, you've forcibly removed your soul and stuck it into a phylactery using an unspeakably evil process. Given that, I don't see too much problem with also having to eat souls to keep your body and soul apart.

As to undead always being evil, I think that's because they draw the power that keeps them going from the Negative Energy Plane, which is also always evil. In 5e there are two sorts of not-necessarily-evil undead; the ghost, and the revenant. Both of which are not created by magic, but by a soul needing to take care of some business before going on to its reward.

If you want a non-evil undead, you need to come up with a power source that isn't the Negative Energy Plane. Homebrew with enthusiasm! Off the top of my head, I propose elemental undead - have zombies that draw their power from Air / Earth / Fire / Water, which grants each type a specific feature or ability the others don't get. And they are indistinguishable one from another unless you make a DC 15 Wisdom(Perception) check.
Bingo. What I didn't like about previous implementations of the lich was that after the initial Act of EEEvil" to perform the Lich Transformation Ritual, you didn't really need to do anything despicable to maintain your existence. There was no drawback to lichdom aside from the initial, vaguely-defined Act of EEEvil to become one, making it a no-brainer for most spellcasters.

Lichdom in previous editions was like vampirism in the Twilight movies. Vampirism in Twilight is supposed to be a curse and it's supposed to suck, but it's really, really hard to feel sorry for Twilight vampires with all the cool perks that they get for their undead state. Both conditions are mostly benefits with few drawbacks, invalidating most ethical concerns against undergoing the transformation.

[Baveboi]

I myself quite enjoyed some of the more... mind-boggling creatures. The Piercer for example. I thought they were quite funny; no attack besides falling on unsuspecting people, taking said fall damage themselves, slow movement, dumb as nails (and that is offending nails) and are very similar to Ropers.

A Roper is a creature prized for it's deadliness, cruel maliciousness and a taste for tactics similar to those used by the Piercer. I had some of my players go against a level inappropriate encounter against a Roper and witnessed a near wipe, but no players died, luckily. Then, shortly after, I put them against a (much easier) Piercer lair encounter where the dumb creatures would hang from a very high ceiling and drop like bullets, attacking one player once each round, almost always dying in the fall. Two players died almost instantly when they got crited into negatives. One got brought back, the other became a ghost and is haunting the party to this day.

I don't know about the rest of you, but these little details on the description and some of the creatures are simply hilarious to play against, which makes the entire table scream in hilarious burst of WTHs and WTFs.

[MadGrady]

Two players died almost instantly when they got crited into negatives. One got brought back, the other became a ghost and is haunting the party to this day.

As a player, I wholeheartedly approve of this story progression. As a DM, I hope to god I can come up with something as great as this at some point in the near future.

[Icewraith]

Benevolent, enlightened, tyrannical Lich is in control of a city or nation. All criminals which commit crimes deserving of death are given to Glorious Leader, May His Rule Never Be Broken, to ensure his continued benevolence. The Lich is a god-king, and depending on how he rules, can be any alignment.

Problem: Depending on the minimum sustenance required per month, the Lich will eventually have to just start eating souls as the size of the population ruthless enough to commit crimes deserving of death and stupid enough to get caught shrinks.

By devouring only evil (or only good) souls, over a long enough period of time a large enough population of liches could disrupt the balance of power between good and evil planes

[MadGrady]

Problem: Depending on the minimum sustenance required per month, the Lich will eventually have to just start eating souls as the size of the population ruthless enough to commit crimes deserving of death and stupid enough to get caught shrinks.

By devouring only evil (or only good) souls, over a long enough period of time a large enough population of liches could disrupt the balance of power between good and evil planes

I like the sound of this for a long-term campaign though. The lich is good, but unwilling to give up his power, but his power is destroying the balance, so stuff starts crumbling around him, with players caught somewhere in the middle trying to figure out what the right course of action is.

[Segev]

Eh. Not every evil thing needs to be some form of vampire, and that's what I fear this reduces liches to. Worse, demilich has become a weaker state, rather than a state attained when a lich stops caring about its carcass at all.

We don't need soul-vampires to replace liches. Liches already have the act of "unspeakable evil" they must commit to become a lich in the first place. I doubt any would really be all that much nicer afterwards. There's no motive to.

[Aron Times]

The Monster Manual does mention that Acererak of the Tomb of Horrors figured out a way to voluntarily transform into a demilich without losing his spellcasting ability. I don't have the book with me right now, but IIRC, such empowered demiliches have a higher challenge rating, to say nothing of being able to remain active and continue their soul-devouring unliving unlifestyle.

Another thing I noticed is the return of physical damage immunities to lycanthropes, golems, and other hardy creatures. This means that even a lowly +1 sword is invaluable in fighting off these resilient threats. At least with lycanthropes, you have the option of blasting them with magic, which is awesome because blasting is very powerful in 5e. Just have the fighter get in the way of the werewoof while the wizard flings at-will Evocations at him.

Also, most fiends have a form of invincibility when not on their native planes. Demons, for example, simply respawn in the Abyss when not killed within. This has the predictable effect of making demons utterly reckless when let loose on the material plane; I imagine them to be suicide attackers who know that they will come back from whatever suicidal mission they go on. The best part is that this doesn't make demons any more difficult to defeat in combat; it's simply background fluff considering the lengthy respawn times for slain demons.

Anyway, what other changes have you noticed?

[Baveboi]

As a player, I wholeheartedly approve of this story progression. As a DM, I hope to god I can come up with something as great as this at some point in the near future.

My best advice is to go with the flow. The player enjoyed his character, was terribly incompetent with it (meaning he wanted more time to get a hold of his abilities) and he was unconscious when the second Piercer dropped 33 points of damage on his 26 max hp head. So I thought he would be a nice The Sixth Sense type of ghost. Later he was summoned by Kelemvor who appeared in the form of a panther and asked him if he would kindly work for him while in the material plane, so he is been for the last 3 sessions, using all powers of a normal ghost and a sorcerer of level 3, but incapable of gaining XP, which doesn't matter that much since he can possess pretty much anything that fails a charisma saving throw.

That all came naturally in the game, I didn't plan any of that and it didn't really screw up with the game flow so far, so it has been dandy. Another character even went as far as being disintegrated on his first battle and had a blast roleplaying herself watching it all out from Bytopia in her eternal rest while talking to baby oysters (long story, she had 7 int, someone convinced her babies came from oysters). The player is bound to make a new character but she has become kind of a legend - "The first person to raise arms against a tyrannical beholder overlord". She is a martyr of their cause now.

[Envyus]

I myself quite enjoyed some of the more... mind-boggling creatures. The Piercer for example. I thought they were quite funny; no attack besides falling on unsuspecting people, taking said fall damage themselves, slow movement, dumb as nails (and that is offending nails) and are very similar to Ropers.

A Roper is a creature prized for it's deadliness, cruel maliciousness and a taste for tactics similar to those used by the Piercer. I had some of my players go against a level inappropriate encounter against a Roper and witnessed a near wipe, but no players died, luckily. Then, shortly after, I put them against a (much easier) Piercer lair encounter where the dumb creatures would hang from a very high ceiling and drop like bullets, attacking one player once each round, almost always dying in the fall. Two players died almost instantly when they got crited into negatives. One got brought back, the other became a ghost and is haunting the party to this day.

I don't know about the rest of you, but these little details on the description and some of the creatures are simply hilarious to play against, which makes the entire table scream in hilarious burst of WTHs and WTFs.

You must have missed the statement that pointed out that Piercers are the larval form of Ropers.


Eh. Not every evil thing needs to be some form of vampire, and that's what I fear this reduces liches to. Worse, demilich has become a weaker state, rather than a state attained when a lich stops caring about its carcass at all.

We don't need soul-vampires to replace liches. Liches already have the act of "unspeakable evil" they must commit to become a lich in the first place. I doubt any would really be all that much nicer afterwards. There's no motive to.

They only have to do it periodically. It's a good way to justified them being evil sacrifices and destroying souls to avoid decaying. Unlike Vampires they don't feel any need to feed their phylactery souls nor do they to every day. They just have to feed souls to their phylactery every once in a while. If they stop for too long their body rots away and they become Demiliches (Which are still strong they just don't have spell casting powers and are very dormant.) However if they give even one soul to their phylactery while in the state of becoming a Demilich or having become a Demilich they revert to normal lichs. It's implied to be a slow process that they ward off everyone in a while. Until they become too tired to do so.

Some Demilichs the Acererak type are straight up better then normal lichs and serve as the traditional type.


The transformation into a demilich isn't a bitter end for all liches that experience it. Made as a conscious choice, the path of the demilich becomes the next step in a dark evolution. The lich Acererak a powerful wizard and demonologist and the infamous master of the Tomb of Horrors anticipated his own transformation, preparing for it by setting enchanted gemstones into his skull's eye sockets and teeth. Each of these soul gems possessed the power to capture the souls on which his phylactery would feed.
Acererak abandoned his physical body, accepting that it would molder and dissolve to dust while he traveled the planes as a disembodied consciousness. If the skull that was his last physical remains was ever disturbed, its gems
would claim the souls of the insolent intruders to his tomb, magically transferring them to his phylactery.
Liches who follow Acererak's path believe that by becoming free of their bodies, they can continue their quest for power beyond the mortal world. As their patron did, they secure their remains within well-guarded vaults, using soul gems to maintain their phylacteries and destroy the adventurers who disturb their lairs.

[MaxWilson]

The Monster Manual does mention that Acererak of the Tomb of Horrors figured out a way to voluntarily transform into a demilich without losing his spellcasting ability.

Where does it say an Acerak demilich still has spellcasting? I just see a note that it has a Trap the Soul action.

[Aron Times]

Where does it say an Acerak demilich still has spellcasting? I just see a note that it has a Trap the Soul action.

You're right, I totally misread that sidebar. It simply says that Acererak devised a way to feed his phylactery (using his Trap the Soul ability) and presumably allow him to remain conscious even as a demilich. My bad. :frown:

[Envyus]

Maybe Disembodied spirit Acererak can cast spells. His true Demilich body is pretty much just a tool that feeds him souls every once in a while allowing him to run around the planes freely.

[LaserFace]

Bingo. What I didn't like about previous implementations of the lich was that after the initial Act of EEEvil" to perform the Lich Transformation Ritual, you didn't really need to do anything despicable to maintain your existence. There was no drawback to lichdom aside from the initial, vaguely-defined Act of EEEvil to become one, making it a no-brainer for most spellcasters.

Lichdom in previous editions was like vampirism in the Twilight movies. Vampirism in Twilight is supposed to be a curse and it's supposed to suck, but it's really, really hard to feel sorry for Twilight vampires with all the cool perks that they get for their undead state. Both conditions are mostly benefits with few drawbacks, invalidating most ethical concerns against undergoing the transformation.

Yeah, I always kinda felt the same way. Liches got a sort of "Just Some Undead Mage Guy" treatment, and it wasn't really interesting to use. Yeah, sure, they need some nameless evil act. Who cares. Players give it such little respect they frequently want to talk about Good Liches, so much that I see this alternative more often spoken of than the Evil variety. I've never seen anyone bother to define what "evil act" the lich ritual requires, and its vagueness just left everyone wondering "if I'm a smart good guy, can't I figure out a better way to do it?"

I honestly don't like the idea of people thinking they can do all the same things as evil, but better, if they're simply clever enough. By Lichdom continuing to shape someone's behavior after the ritual, it kind of makes an enemy Lich have more meaning. I mean, previously, I found little reason to say a villain was a Lich, apart from it letting me give him some different stats. Because, yadda yadda, some evil thing, maybe? Does it matter? Why am I explaining this again? Because damage resistance? How interesting.

Devouring souls is a defining feature, and I think it's a cool one. It specifically clues you into their behavior and motivation. I'm all for that.

[Pex]

Yeah, I always kinda felt the same way. Liches got a sort of "Just Some Undead Mage Guy" treatment, and it wasn't really interesting to use. Yeah, sure, they need some nameless evil act. Who cares. Players give it such little respect they frequently want to talk about Good Liches, so much that I see this alternative more often spoken of than the Evil variety. I've never seen anyone bother to define what "evil act" the lich ritual requires, and its vagueness just left everyone wondering "if I'm a smart good guy, can't I figure out a better way to do it?"



You have to commit murder which splits your soul. You cast a spell to store your soul into some object. As long as the object with your soul remains intact you cannot die. Some wizards believe splitting your soul 7 times makes you truly impervious, though one made a fatal mistake of accidentally creating an 8th in a living person who was his downfall.

:smallwink:

[Aron Times]

You have to commit murder which splits your soul. You cast a spell to store your soul into some object. As long as the object with your soul remains intact you cannot die. Some wizards believe splitting your soul 7 times makes you truly impervious, though one made a fatal mistake of accidentally creating an 8th in a living person who was his downfall.

:smallwink:
Stoppus Badguyus!

:thog: little man talk funny. *Power Attack for 1d12+666 damage*

[dead_but_dreaming]

In reply to all lich-related posts: I just enjoy moral greyness. There doesn't have to be a cosmic Evil-label for undeath to seem abhorrent to most societies. Not even Negative energy needs to have an inherent connection to evil: it's just that most people (in the broadest sense) will probably make that connection (which might be prejudice).

[Eslin]

It was a choice to become a lich in the first place. I like the idea that lichdom means sealing yourself to evil for eternity. I rather dislike the wishy-washy approach where cool monsters must have a non-evil option - look what's happened to vampires. As for the whole 'must eat souls' thing, meh. Too much like the aforementioned vampire for my taste.

I'm generally favourably disposed. The beholder as a specific example looks interesting. The whole 'must use random eye stalks, but use more and more the more enemies they fight' is an interesting mechanic.
I don't think I like that the average goblin or kobold is now on par with (or more dangerous than) the average human guard. I like pathetic hordes of irredeemably evil little snots.

It's not wishy-washy, and they don't have to have a 'non-evil option' - for a monster that has no inherent reason to be evil (such as a lich, which are merely reanimated casters not hurting anyone), there is little point in going 'hur dur they have to be evil because reasons'. Evil is more interesting when it's a choice.

[hymer]

It's not wishy-washy,

Disagreement with my stated opinion!? Heresy!


and they don't have to have a 'non-evl option' - for a monster that has no inherent reason to be evil (such as a lich, which are merely reanimated casters not hurting anyone), there is little point in going 'hur dur they have to be evil because reasons'.

The reason, risking too fine a point, is that I'm playing Dungeons & Dragons over here, not Priests & Social Workers. I'm perfectly happy with undeath being an inherently objectionable and wrong state of being, watched over by a demon lord and championed by evil priests and necromancers; and as such putting an undead to rest is the right thing to do, all things being equal. But it is, of course, merely opinion, and it's something that can be altered by anyone who thinks undeath should be morally fine without any trouble.
Regardless, the game designers were bound to annoy at least one of us, whichever choice they made. :smallsmile:


Evil is more interesting when it's a choice.

There's any number of beings that can have a choice in the matter - humans are often touted as just this. I'm happy there are also representations of straight-up, irredeemable, loathsome Evil in the game. The Lich being so (after choosing it, btw) increases options in creating a villain rather than decreasing it.

[Eslin]

Eh, I mostly just enjoy having my players rush in and kill the lich only to find they've just killed Nelson Manskela. Most liches being evil I'm fine with, but if one wants not to be there's no reason it can't be.

[rlc]

It's not wishy-washy, and they don't have to have a 'non-evil option' - for a monster that has no inherent reason to be evil (such as a lich, which are merely reanimated casters not hurting anyone), there is little point in going 'hur dur they have to be evil because reasons'. Evil is more interesting when it's a choice.

i'm honestly trying to understand your thinking here, so i apologize if this comes across as rude:
-liches might be inherently evil, but because becoming a lich is a choice in the first place, nobody is inherently a lich.
-they chose to do evil things, knowing that said evil things would turn them into said lich.
-they can always choose to not be a lich and instead turn into a literal sleepy head.
so yeah, i'm not seeing how it isn't a choice. maybe in other editions and games it was different (i once played a game with a good lich who actually made sense as a good guy and didn't just "not feel like being bad"), but they're definitely still making choices.

[Naanomi]

The only reasonable good lich I've run into in a game was an unwilling one: a prophet forcefully turned into a lich and prevented from turning into a demilich to milk him for more prophecies by a cosmic-horror cult.

We killed it at its request.

[rlc]

the one i'm talking about died in a huge battle against a demon lord and became a lich so he could guard the way to get to said demon lord so nobody releases it by accident. note that in this game series (it's a computer game, so i'm not going to say the name, even if it is an older game), you didn't have to do the ritual yourself to become a lich.
you obviously still kill him (the game's dialog box words it as freeing him, or something like that), but he's not just a "doesn't wanna be evil" lich.

[LaserFace]

You have to commit murder which splits your soul. You cast a spell to store your soul into some object. As long as the object with your soul remains intact you cannot die. Some wizards believe splitting your soul 7 times makes you truly impervious, though one made a fatal mistake of accidentally creating an 8th in a living person who was his downfall.

:smallwink:

If Voldemort was an effective villain from a narrative perspective, it had nothing to do with the above. My point is that unless you define ways a thing is significant, it isn't significant. "I killed a guy, I'm a Lich now, it means nothing because I'm still more defined by just being Evil Wizard" is my problem. I want a lich to be more than just being a bad guy who is harder to kill.

[Freelance GM]

I want a lich to be more than just being a bad guy who is harder to kill.

I've always thought of Liches as being like the Horned King from the Disney Black Cauldron movie. Brooding and clever, with an unnerving level of calm- until their plans are foiled. The Lich fights through proxies- like a savage horde- until it is ready to set its grand scheme into action.

A Lich might have committed an evil act, but in the end, it's their own hubris that makes them evil. Think about it- a Lich has achieved its life's goal- conquering its own mortality. It considers itself invincible. Yes, its phylactery is a liability, but if the Lich was intelligent enough to get this far, how can some blundering fool with a magic sword ruin their plans?

Even if a Lich begins with good (or at least Neutral) intentions, like using its immortality to solve the many mysteries of the universe, chances are the Lich will eventually conclude with its 20+ Intelligence that it could create a better world if it were in charge, and once that happens, the Lich starts sliding down the slippery slope. Perhaps a Lawful Lich sees a chance to rule as a benevolent dictator, or a Chaotic one thinks it could overthrow the tyrannical monarchies or bloated bureaucracies of the living world. The Lich has already used dark magic once... And undead armies are just so much more efficient than fleshy ones... Bodies could even be harvested from old battlefields, if killing people is too objectionable, or would draw too much attention...

Surely, civilization would bow before such an unstoppable force. Surely, they would realize that this is for their own good? No, their leaders are too stupid for that. They must pad their egos by at least trying to put up a fight. They'll never negotiate with an undead- they don't understand why the Lich sacrificed what it did to become immortal. War would be inevitable, unless the Lich could prove that it was pointless to resist. A preemptive strike- brutal, and relentless, to shatter their defenses and show them how fragile their civilization is...

[LaserFace]

@Freelance: I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that character.

Your ability to craft a narrative is good, but I don't see why I can't just have any wizard decide he wants to become a Benevolent Dictator or what-have-you. Wouldn't an old, presumptuous and egomaniacal Elf fit the bill in a lot of cases? Can't even normal, short-lived Humans work for that kind of concept?

Certainly you can use the idea of a lich to enhance some imagery, regardless of soul-sucking. I'm not saying you couldn't earlier. And, if it really bothers anyone to use the newest lore for lich, I think they ought to ignore it, or do whatever else they think is best for their campaign.

But, I like that lichdom in 5E has consequences after achieving undeath. I think it further separates from general concepts that don't require a lich specifically. 5E lich presents you with an enemy, explains why it's a problem to a region (and gives PCs a reason to see it as a monster), irrespective of its personality traits. Lichdom seems to be given a greater definition than it had previously, and strikes me as less superfluous.

[MaxWilson]

If Voldemort was an effective villain from a narrative perspective, it had nothing to do with the above. My point is that unless you define ways a thing is significant, it isn't significant. "I killed a guy, I'm a Lich now, it means nothing because I'm still more defined by just being Evil Wizard" is my problem. I want a lich to be more than just being a bad guy who is harder to kill.

I would like it if the phylactery was an actual liability as well as an asset--something like the Soul Gem to a Slaad.

[Suichimo]

You have to commit murder which splits your soul. You cast a spell to store your soul into some object. As long as the object with your soul remains intact you cannot die. Some wizards believe splitting your soul 7 times makes you truly impervious, though one made a fatal mistake of accidentally creating an 8th in a living person who was his downfall.

:smallwink:

He also would have shot one of them to the furthest reaches of space, hell a horcrux might even be able to withstand a black hole, and put one of them in a planet's core. I don't know if Rowling would have had a winnable story at that point, though.

[INDYSTAR188]

Benevolent Dictator

I've never seen these two words put together!

Side question if I may, is an encounter with a Mind Flayer and two Intellect Devourer's realistic for a level 7 party? I'm not referring to the encounter guidelines presented in the Basic rules, just inherently. XP and CR are a framework but I don't think that tells the whole story.

[MeeposFire]

I've never seen these two words put together!

Side question if I may, is an encounter with a Mind Flayer and two Intellect Devourer's realistic for a level 7 party? I'm not referring to the encounter guidelines presented in the Basic rules, just inherently. XP and CR are a framework but I don't think that tells the whole story.

Ah yes the benevolent dictator like this one...

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b217/strangething/ponies/Celestia/obey-poster-cropped.png

[Rainbownaga]

You have to commit murder which splits your soul. You cast a spell to store your soul into some object. As long as the object with your soul remains intact you cannot die. Some wizards believe splitting your soul 7 times makes you truly impervious, though one made a fatal mistake of accidentally creating an 8th in a living person who was his downfall.

:smallwink:

Wow, if committing murder was all it took for a wizard to make a phalactery there'd be wizards with hundreds of the bloody things.

Heck, the CE types would have killed those dudes anyway.

[Envyus]

I would like it if the phylactery was an actual liability as well as an asset--something like the Soul Gem to a Slaad.

You could try what Redcloak did to Xykon threaten to break it. However this will not do anything to the still living lich other then really piss it off.

Anyway Lichdom is still a choice and requires rituals to become one. Once they became a lich they knew what they had to do to in order to live forever.

[Envyus]

In reply to all lich-related posts: I just enjoy moral greyness. There doesn't have to be a cosmic Evil-label for undeath to seem abhorrent to most societies. Not even Negative energy needs to have an inherent connection to evil: it's just that most people (in the broadest sense) will probably make that connection (which might be prejudice).

Negative Energy is an anathema to life. Killing what it comes in contact with or turning them into undead. The undead due to the negative energy powering them despise life as well and will snuff it out when they come in contact with it.

I am fine with Moral Grayness, but I don't think the undead is were it should be looked for. By default they should be something that is evil and desires nothing more then purging life from all it can. (Hell even in more morally Grey settings like Ebberon and the Order of the Stick universe the undead are seen as always evil.)

[MaxWilson]

I've never seen these two words put together!

Side question if I may, is an encounter with a Mind Flayer and two Intellect Devourer's realistic for a level 7 party? I'm not referring to the encounter guidelines presented in the Basic rules, just inherently. XP and CR are a framework but I don't think that tells the whole story.

That's... very situational. If it's a party of wizards and Eldritch Knights, then yeah, they could probably take 'em. If the mind flayer is more interested in talking than eating, then yeah, that could be an interesting encounter. If the party is able to engage with advantage (e.g. in a large cavern starting at 100' to 200'), then yeah, that would be okay. If on the other hand the illithid is out to kill and is leveraging its minions to detect the party's approach and attack from above (using Levitate) by surprise, Dominating some party members and blasting the others with Mind Blast while its minions devour brains... I would rate that as a Deadly encounter for any party that wasn't exceptionally paranoid and capable (Alert feat, good cooperation, etc.).

Hmmmm, that makes me want to run a mock-combat under those conditions. I expect it to be ugly and a close call for the mock-PCs.

[Eslin]

Negative Energy is an anathema to life. Killing what it comes in contact with or turning them into undead. The undead due to the negative energy powering them despise life as well and will snuff it out when they come in contact with it.

I am fine with Moral Grayness, but I don't think the undead is were it should be looked for. By default they should be something that is evil and desires nothing more then purging life from all it can. (Hell even in more morally Grey settings like Ebberon and the Order of the Stick universe the undead are seen as always evil.)

This isn't moral greyness. Negative energy and positive energy are not inherently aligned, they're just antithetical and thetical to life respectively. There is no moral colouring involved whatsoever. Bandaids and bullets have no alignment, they just are.

[Sartharina]

Benevolent, enlightened, tyrannical Lich is in control of a city or nation. All criminals which commit crimes deserving of death are given to Glorious Leader, May His Rule Never Be Broken, to ensure his continued benevolence. The Lich is a god-king, and depending on how he rules, can be any alignment.Didn't Games Workshop run with this? Except instead of the souls of criminals, it was the souls of psions? "THE EMPEROR PROTECTS!"


Anyway. On topic - I like that the "Outsider" type has been replaced with more narrow, fitting groups.

[dead_but_dreaming]

This isn't moral greyness. Negative energy and positive energy are not inherently aligned, they're just antithetical and thetical to life respectively. There is no moral colouring involved whatsoever. Bandaids and bullets have no alignment, they just are.

This! Negative energy is a mindless force of nature.

[Sartharina]

This! Negative energy is a mindless force of nature.But to use it is usually an Evil act, because doing so is to use/empower Anti-life, which is by definition violating respect for life.

[Gnomes2169]

This! Negative energy is a mindless force of nature.

... Which indiscriminately destroys all life it comes in contact with, animates that destroyed life, and then causes the animated corpses to go on a rampage and slaughter even more life. While the energy itself is not inherently evil, its effects and creatures created by it most definitely are, as it always turns back to pointless destruction and slaughter (specifically of all life). Since 99.99% of all adventurers and the beings they interact with peacefully at least start out as living creatures, this leads to negative energy being seen as a force of evil, as it is anti-them and everything they care about.

[Inevitability]

I personally see it this way:

In the beginning, there were good gods and evil gods. There were also neutral gods, but those were just sitting around without being important to the story, okay?

The good gods, being generally benevolent and protective, built their dominions on the planes close to the Positive Energy Plane. After all, the energy there was just like them: healing and live-giving. The evil gods, being more associated with destruction and death, instead claimed the Negative Energy Plane for themselves.

Even though neither of those planes was inherently evil or good, the influence of the gods living close to these made it that effects using negative or positive energy eventually gained Good or Evil qualities. Hence the fact that undead, being animated by negative energy, are evil.


Just the way I see it, which may or may not blatantly ignore canon and logic.

[Sartharina]

Negative energy is so vile that the only demon prince that doesn't nope the **** away from it is the one it's killed, reanimated, and mindraped into being under its control.

To me, lichdom's immortality is a tempting lie. Everyone knows becoming a lich is a way for a spellcaster to achieve immortality - after all, that's the only reason anyone could want to be a lich, and liches ARE immortal! Right?

Except it's not. And you don't learn that until it's too late. In 3.5, it locked the lich's mind into the state it was at the time of death (Libris Mortis). In 5e, it also requires the upkeep of consuming souls.

[rlc]

I've never seen these two words put together!

Mostly because the word has negative connotations. It's like saying "enlightened despot."
But, even with the negative connotations, they all think they're benevolent.

[Shining Wrath]

Regarding liches having a choice about being evil.
1) There's that bit about the ritual being "unspeakably evil". You kick many, many puppies.
2) In order to perform said unspeakably evil ritual, you have to have reached a mental state where you can justify kicking puppies for the greater good - which you define as you not dying. There's no way to get there without a very high opinion of your importance to the world. You continuing to live means all the puppies must be kicked.
3) You separate your soul from your body and stuff it into a special box, the phylactery. This renders personal growth and development impossible. And remember, the ritual that does this is unspeakably evil, kicking many puppies.
4) What's left of your personality is the bad part. To become a lich, no matter how noble your intentions were, is to undergo a ritual which destroys the good in you and leaves only the bad. As you kick the puppies, the parts of you that were loving, and kind, and concerned about the welfare of others, and wanted the world to be a better place, die. What's left is the part that wants you to live forever, and have power for power's own sake, and kick still more puppies because YOU LIKE KICKING PUPPIES NOW. Because that's the effect of performing unspeakably evil rituals on yourself.
5) Since you must destroy your own soul during the ritual, each lich's ritual will be different as each soul is different. Some liches kick puppies, while others take priceless works of art and deface them beyond all repair. The critical point is that you wind up with a personality where you have destroyed everything good in you, and you have ripped your soul from your body and stuffed it into a box so your depraved personality can never be changed.

Now, in a world with numerous deities which do all sorts of miraculous stuff and where magic works, anything is possible. Including a non-evil lich. It's just that the "life" story for a non-evil lich is going to be truly amazingly remarkable and highly improbable.

The non-evil NPC lich - one per campaign setting.

The non-evil PC lich; nope, not gonna happen. When a PC becomes a lich, that character becomes DM property. Because as I observed elsewhere, my experience is that the non-evil lich PC is the final form of the 3.5 munchkin; someone who is not satisfied with the godlike power of the 3.5 wizard or cleric, but wants to add immortality and a fear aura and a paralyzing touch on top of that.

[MaxWilson]

To me, lichdom's immortality is a tempting lie. Everyone knows becoming a lich is a way for a spellcaster to achieve immortality - after all, that's the only reason anyone could want to be a lich, and liches ARE immortal! Right?

Another version of the "tempting lie" is if it actually kills you, but creates a lich and grants all of your abilities to the lich in a way similar to the Intellect Devourer eating your brain. The lich may claim to be you and have your memories, but it isn't.

[INDYSTAR188]

That's... very situational. If it's a party of wizards and Eldritch Knights, then yeah, they could probably take 'em. If the mind flayer is more interested in talking than eating, then yeah, that could be an interesting encounter. If the party is able to engage with advantage (e.g. in a large cavern starting at 100' to 200'), then yeah, that would be okay. If on the other hand the illithid is out to kill and is leveraging its minions to detect the party's approach and attack from above (using Levitate) by surprise, Dominating some party members and blasting the others with Mind Blast while its minions devour brains... I would rate that as a Deadly encounter for any party that wasn't exceptionally paranoid and capable (Alert feat, good cooperation, etc.).

Hmmmm, that makes me want to run a mock-combat under those conditions. I expect it to be ugly and a close call for the mock-PCs.

I agree, as with any question that starts with "Do you guys think..." it is highly situational and subjective. Let's assume a couple of things:

1. we have a well rounded party of 7th level (Battlemaster Fighter, Lore College Bard, Transmutation Wizard, Tempus Cleric)

2. the Mind Flayer & ID's are waiting in ambush for someone to stroll by. The MF is levitating in a cavern, out of sight and the ID's are hiding, waiting for the MF to incapacitate their prey for them

3. we are in a 30'L x 20'W x 45'H cavern that has stalactites/stalagmites and a shelf of rock 15' off the ground, the cavern exit is small enough that a medium creature would have to crouch or crawl through.

4. although the MF is hungry, as an intelligent sentient being it is open to an alternative reward and is willing to forgoe the eating the parties brains for some other extreemly valuable item (critical information, magic item, money, activation word to a portal, etc).

If you've done the mock-combat let me know how it went!


Negative energy is so vile that the only demon prince that doesn't nope the **** away from it is the one it's killed, reanimated, and mindraped into being under its control.

Which demon prince are you referring to here? Sounds pretty interesting.

[CubeB]

I think that the new CR 21 Demilich is a reference to Return to the Tomb of Horrors, where the skull was just another trap and the real Lich was a disembodied thing that lived in the edge of the negative energy plane. But I'm not really sure because I've never read it.

[Envyus]

Which demon prince are you referring to here? Sounds pretty interesting.

Orcus I think. He has the properties of the undead after being reanimated and serves as the prince of the undead. He hates all things. This includes undead, but he hates life more and so fills his kingdom with the undead. (In 5e he even turns demons under his command into Undead.) I would not say he was mindraped in the serving Negative Energy however. He is a just an undead monster that hates life and desires the extinction of all things other then himself.

[Beleriphon]

Didn't Games Workshop run with this? Except instead of the souls of criminals, it was the souls of psions? "THE EMPEROR PROTECTS!"


Anyway. On topic - I like that the "Outsider" type has been replaced with more narrow, fitting groups.

Sort of, but the God-Emperor of Mankind is entombed within his Golden Throne and the throne is fueled by the psychic energy of psykers that die while powering the Astronomicon (ie. all of them eventually).

As for Orcus, I don't thinkt hat negative energy controls him, only that the experience of dying and becoming an undead demon prince has made him hate all of existence except himself.

[MaxWilson]

If you've done the mock-combat let me know how it went!

Well, it went... different than how I expected.

The party consisted of:

Grimdred, a Cimmurian (+1 Str, +1 Con, Great Weapon Mastery) Pirate Battlemaster 7 (Level 4: Polearm Master, Level 6: +2 Str) with Str 18 Dex 12 Con 16 Int 12 Wis 12 Cha 8. I didn't assign skills because they weren't relevant.

Polonius, a Hill Dwarf Soldier Cleric of Tempus 7 (Level 4: +2 Wis) with Str 12 Dex 12 Con 16 Int 12 Wis 18 Cha 10.

Romeo Gatlanao, a Half-elf Charlatan Lore Bard 7 (Level 4: Lucky) with Expertise in Stealth and Perception and Magical Secrets: Pass Without Trace, Fireball and Str 10 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 14 Cha 18.

Fizwhiz, a Denebian (+1 Int, +1 Con, Alert) Soldier Transmuter 7 (Level 4: Int +2) with a Transmuter Stone of Darkvision ('cause Underdark) and Str 10 Dex 13 Con 14 Int 18 Wis 13 Cha 11.

Note that I didn't point-buy these stats or roll them, I just kind of eyeballed stats that looked interesting and not too unusual for PCs in my experience.

Anyway, the way things worked out, Romeo was scouting ahead using Pass Without Trace, which combined with Stealth Expertise makes him nearly invisible (1d20+18 on passive perception required!). He popped into the cavern where the illithid and buddies were lurking. I gave the illithid and pals advantage on their stealth checks for hiding in unusual places (ceiling/behind rocks), and the intellect devourers wound up with 19/20 respectively on their stealth checks, and even the illithid rolled a 15 (19 including his +4 bonus), which was just barely too hard for Romeo's passive perception to spot (18). So he signalled the party the cavern was okay and moved ahead while the party entered the cavern.

Because not everybody has darkvision, the party was using Light spells and thus had no chance at stealth. The illithid would have gotten the first strike in, but Fizwhiz's Alert kicked in and he got initiative over the illithid (I ruled that he got a creepy feeling somehow and looked up as the illithid was gathering his willpower for a mind blast) and he launched a fireball straight up into the illithid's face. Illithid took 14 points of damage and then triggered his enormous Mind Blast, hitting all three party members he was aware of. The party got lucky and Grimdred rolled a natural 20, Polonius rolled a natural 1 (taking 28 points of psychic damage), and Fizwhiz made his save too. Then the illithid ordered his intellect devourer pals to attack, and Grimdred critted one of them on the approach (due to Polearm Mastery), cutting it in half due to Great Weapon Mastery (23 points of damage total). The second one got close enough to Grimdred to claw at him (missing due to plate armor) and attempt to devour his intellect. Grimdred failed his save and took 9 points of psychic damage, but the intellect devourer rolled only 8 on 3d6 and failed to eat his mind.

At this point Romeo saw the intellect devourers behind him and freaked out. Figuring that some temporary damage was worth it to prevent permanent injury, he used a bonus action to give Bardic Inspiration to Grimdred and then launched a fireball back into the cavern, targeted to hit the intellect devourer and the illithid. Unfortunately that also meant that it hit everyone else too except Romeo (too far away). Grimdred failed his save and took 31 points of damage, Polonius was stunned and automatically took 31 points of damage, Fizwhiz made his save and took 15 points of damage. The intellect devourer took 15 points of damage and was reduced to 6 points of damage, the illithid made its save and also took 15 points of damage.

Next, Grimdred took his action and hit the last intellect devourer with a normal (non-Power Attack) attack, killing it. He still had an extra attack left which he used to grapple Polonius (auto success due to stun) and yank him backwards out of the cavern.

End of the first round of combat.

Then Fizwhiz took his second action, threw up a magical Darkness globe in the illithid's direction, and himself retreated back out of the cavern.

The illithid retreated to lick its wounds, and the encounter was over. Romeo probably snuck back over to join the party afterward (he still had Pass Without Trace active).

The encounter didn't go well for the party (Polonius at 7 HP, Grimdred at 27, Fizwhiz down from 44 to 29) and it didn't go well for the illithid (two minions down, itself down from 71 to 42 HP, and no dinner).

I think both sides had some good luck and some bad luck. Edit: also, the party got lucky that I (as the intellect devourer) didn't think to hop in Polonius' brain once Grimdred had already used up his reaction squishing the first intellect devourer. Target fixation I guess. It might not have worked anyway though because I'd have had to win an Int contest against a non-zero Int, with slightly worse than 50% chance of success.

Edit2: the party is also lucky that I had forgotten about the intellect devourer's telepathic mind-sensing ability, which should have made it possible for the illithid to ambush Romeo as he came through (negating all chance of being Stealthy).

[Sartharina]

Orcus I think. He has the properties of the undead after being reanimated and serves as the prince of the undead. He hates all things. This includes undead, but he hates life more and so fills his kingdom with the undead. (In 5e he even turns demons under his command into Undead.) I would not say he was mindraped in the serving Negative Energy however. He is a just an undead monster that hates life and desires the extinction of all things other then himself.If you're Undead, you're controlled by Negative Energy.

[LawfulNifty]

If you're Undead, you're controlled by Negative Energy.

"Animated by" isn't the same as "under the thrall of," unless you'd describe the living as "controlled by Positive Energy." I don't think I've ever read Negative Energy as having agency of any kind. If that's a detail from your custom setting, cool, sounds like an interesting twist, but you're coming across like you think that's official D&D lore and I'm pretty sure it's not.

I also wouldn't conflate "hazardous to life" with "Evil." Inflict spells channel Negative Energy, right? If I'm a cleric who channels lots and lots of Negative Energy, am I Evil even though I only channel it into demons?

[Envyus]

"Animated by" isn't the same as "under the thrall of," unless you'd describe the living as "controlled by Positive Energy." I don't think I've ever read Negative Energy as having agency of any kind. If that's a detail from your custom setting, cool, sounds like an interesting twist, but you're coming across like you think that's official D&D lore and I'm pretty sure it's not.

I also wouldn't conflate "hazardous to life" with "Evil." Inflict spells channel Negative Energy, right? If I'm a cleric who channels lots and lots of Negative Energy, am I Evil even though I only channel it into demons?

If you were animating the demons as undead yes. But no you would not be.

[Sartharina]

"Animated by" isn't the same as "under the thrall of," unless you'd describe the living as "controlled by Positive Energy."

This very well might be the case.

[...]

I myself quite enjoyed some of the more... mind-boggling creatures. The Piercer for example. I thought they were quite funny; no attack besides falling on unsuspecting people, taking said fall damage themselves, slow movement, dumb as nails (and that is offending nails) and are very similar to Ropers.

DID YOU KNOW THAT

Piercers were originally in 2AD&D.

NOW YOU KNOW

Back on topic, Imma just going to complain again about the lack of outsider type.

[Sartharina]

Back on topic, Imma just going to complain again about the lack of outsider type.And I say Hallelujah to the replacement of the 'outsider' type with "Aberration", "Fey", "Construct", "Celestial", "Fiend", and "Elemental" subtypes.

Having all creatures not native to the material plane be clumped under a single subtype makes as much sense as classifying all material-plane native creatures as "Beasts" (Or, if you're lucky, "Magical Beasts"

[Gnomes2169]

And I say Hallelujah to the replacement of the 'outsider' type with "Aberration", "Fey", "Construct", "Celestial", "Fiend", and "Elemental" subtypes.

Having all creatures not native to the material plane be clumped under a single subtype makes as much sense as classifying all material-plane native creatures as "Beasts" (Or, if you're lucky, "Magical Beasts"

This. Subtypes were fun and all, but type stacking and overused creature types got silly. Outsiders were basically "everything except people on the material," and then we got the "native" subtype and there wasn't even that distinction. Creatures having their own unique classification is a welcome change...

[Kyutaru]

On the whole Lich topic, I'm kinding seeing them as Black Lanterns. Fueled by the Black Battery known as the Negative Energy plane, they're invariably evil because of it. Pure bad mojo flows through their not-veins. It really doesn't matter if the plane has an influence or not, we can just look to the gods to see the cosmic opinion on it. Things powered by the "Black Lantern" are Evil with a capital 'E', so sayeth the mighty Thor. Even though clerics sometimes tap into the negative powers, they are mortals... mortals are not divine beings pure and true. They are corruptible and never completely good or evil, but an amalgamation of the two. Being able to cast an Inflict spell makes as much sense as being able to cast a Cure spell considering mortals have the capacity for both within them. Only Fiends and Celestials are completely devoted to a particular alignment, and heck, even they've had issues! Check out the Fallen Angel.

[hamishspence]

Angels (Planetar, Solar, Deva) have gone from being "Any Good" to being "Always Lawful Good" with the rationale that even Chaotic Good deities need Lawful minions who will consistently do what they're told.

[Gnomes2169]

Angels (Planetar, Solar, Deva) have gone from being "Any Good" to being "Always Lawful Good" with the rationale that even Chaotic Good deities need Lawful minions who will consistently do what they're told.

In 3.5, Solars were LG and Angels were their own, NG creatures and Devas were their own CG creatures. The shift is a bit annoying, since they kept the dichotomy between the fiends... :/

[hamishspence]

In 3.5, Solars were LG and Angels were their own, NG creatures and Devas were their own CG creatures.

Incorrect:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm

[Shining Wrath]

Angels (Planetar, Solar, Deva) have gone from being "Any Good" to being "Always Lawful Good" with the rationale that even Chaotic Good deities need Lawful minions who will consistently do what they're told.

This bothered me as well, because a CG deity would have CG minions who would serve reliably because they share the same values as the deity and have been persuaded by cogent argument that they ought to do as they are asked.

So while a LG deity might say "Oh Solar, I order you to go forth and smite that evil dude with vigorous smiting", a CG deity would say "Oh Solar, I'm sure you'll agree that the universe would be a better place if you paid that evil dude a visit and opened a can of smite upon him".

And with >99% chance of success, the CG Solar would agree with the CG deity, since he hangs around that deity in the first place because they agree most of the time, and he's inclined to give the deity the benefit of the doubt when he's not sure.

[Segev]

The non-evil PC lich; nope, not gonna happen. When a PC becomes a lich, that character becomes DM property. Because as I observed elsewhere, my experience is that the non-evil lich PC is the final form of the 3.5 munchkin; someone who is not satisfied with the godlike power of the 3.5 wizard or cleric, but wants to add immortality and a fear aura and a paralyzing touch on top of that.

Pff. No true munchkin goes for lichdom. The LA is not worth the lost levels of classes which advance your maximum spell level.



More seriously, I don't think you need more enforcement than "you had to commit an unspeakably evil act to get here." No matter your good intentions, until you honestly REPENT of that evil act, and atone for it, you're never really good. You've proven that you're willing to do ANYTHING at the expense of ANYONE ELSE to achieve your continued existence.

No evil of the magnitude required is victimless.

No good person who knows what you've done is going to accept "it was for the greater good" as an excuse.

Any preaching you do to anybody about why what they're doing is wrong is hypocrisy.

Until you repent, until you truly feel that what you did was reprehensible and want absolution for it but know there can be no justification, until you're willing to accept any punishment to atone for it, at literally any cost to yourself, you cannot have any moral highground over anybody.

The game doesn't spell out what this act is, but whatever it is, it is literally the worst kind of monstrosity that you can think of as a player or worse. So before you look to play a lich, think for yourself what the absolute most heinous, most reprehensible thing anybody could do is. Make sure you don't give it any means of copping out by claiming a lack of innocent victims. Think of something you don't think you, even if you're a Christian who strives to be all-forgiving after the example of your faith's central figure, would be able to forgive. Then think of everything you can to make it worse, more evil, more vile and reprehensible. Something nobody with a shred of decency could bring themselves to do.

THAT is the best and most virtuous option for what the lich ritual involves doing. Any other possibilities must be WORSE, DARKER, LESS forgivable.

Having been willing to do that...being a "good lich" is going to be hard to impossible. Even if you try to play as one, there's no amount of "but look at the good I'm doing!" that makes what you did justifiable.

[Shining Wrath]

The munchkin first obtains Wizard 20 in a non-epic campaign, and then wants to be a lich after the 8 LA buyoff is irrelevant. Once you're never going up in level ever again, who cares about LA? Effectively, he's aiming to be level 28 when the rest of the party is level 20.

And that, my friends, is Unspeakable Evil. :smallbiggrin:

I have seen it argued hereabout, perhaps tendentiously, that just because you've done this one very bad thing your motives DO matter and if you convinced yourself that it was for the greater good, you can be a good aligned lich.

To which I reply that becoming a lich involves putting your life energy into a phylactery - that is, you do to yourself what a vampire does to its victims, you drain away your own life energy, and store it in a special box.

Effectively, whatever the ritual is, destroys your soul in the same way that being devoured by a vampire does. When you rise a vampire spawn, your soul is not the same soul you started with.

Which is why I think each lich has a different ritual. Since every soul is different, every ritual is different.

[Kyutaru]

This seems like a great opportunity to bring up the Baelnorn.

[Sartharina]

This bothered me as well, because a CG deity would have CG minions who would serve reliably because they share the same values as the deity and have been persuaded by cogent argument that they ought to do as they are asked.

So while a LG deity might say "Oh Solar, I order you to go forth and smite that evil dude with vigorous smiting", a CG deity would say "Oh Solar, I'm sure you'll agree that the universe would be a better place if you paid that evil dude a visit and opened a can of smite upon him".

And with >99% chance of success, the CG Solar would agree with the CG deity, since he hangs around that deity in the first place because they agree most of the time, and he's inclined to give the deity the benefit of the doubt when he's not sure.LG is still a better guy to have. You overestimate the chances of agreement.

I'm going to have to homebrew the Archons, Guardinals, and Eladrin again (And make the Eladrin Fey instead of Celestials, if I can't dual-type them. They were pretty fey-like in 3e)

[DireSickFish]

Kuo-Toa have sweet lore in this edition. Not sure if it's "new". The fact that they believe there leader is a god and he gets powers from there belief and -gives- his followers power in return is wicked awesome.

Krakens and Dragon Turtles being legendary threats is also new and I'm having a hard time adjusting to it. With so many monsters being powered down for lower CR's it seems strange that these two sea beasts get powered up. It also doesn't leave a lot for a low/mid level "sea monster" quest.

[Kyutaru]

LG is still a better guy to have. You overestimate the chances of agreement.

I'm going to have to homebrew the Archons, Guardinals, and Eladrin again (And make the Eladrin Fey instead of Celestials, if I can't dual-type them. They were pretty fey-like in 3e)

I don't think alignment really has anything to do with whether someone will agree with you or not. The Lawful guy may just feel more duty-bound to follow your order, while the Chaotic guy might just grudgingly accept that you're the boss no matter how right he thinks he is. Vikings were pretty chaotic but the rule was simple... you do what I say or I punch you really hard. And then you do it anyway with a sore jaw.

I think the only real difference between the two is that the Lawful guy might feel compelled to stick to the plan, following orders to the letter and doing things he rather not do just because he is bound by a code to do so. The Chaotic guy, on the other hand, is more likely to say screw the plan and just wing it should the situation call for a little improvisation.

[Sartharina]

Krakens and Dragon Turtles being legendary threats is also new and I'm having a hard time adjusting to it. With so many monsters being powered down for lower CR's it seems strange that these two sea beasts get powered up. It also doesn't leave a lot for a low/mid level "sea monster" quest.Actually, Kraken (CR 12) were Legendary monsters in 3.5, and Dragon Turtles (CR 9) were almost legendary. Legendary in 3.5 is CR 11.

[MaxWilson]

I don't think alignment really has anything to do with whether someone will agree with you or not. The Lawful guy may just feel more duty-bound to follow your order, while the Chaotic guy might just grudgingly accept that you're the boss no matter how right he thinks he is. Vikings were pretty chaotic but the rule was simple... you do what I say or I punch you really hard. And then you do it anyway with a sore jaw.

I think the only real difference between the two is that the Lawful guy might feel compelled to stick to the plan, following orders to the letter and doing things he rather not do just because he is bound by a code to do so. The Chaotic guy, on the other hand, is more likely to say screw the plan and just wing it should the situation call for a little improvisation.

Isn't that pretty much was said? The LG guys will obey you, the CG guys... might or might not.

LG planetar: "Guys, there's a sign right there! No eating in the cathedral!"
CG eladrin: "[hides the cookies] Come on, we're not hurting anything."

The LG guys are predisposed to believe that whoever set the rules knows what they are doing, CG guys think rules were made for other people.

[...]

Anyway. On topic - I like that the "Outsider" type has been replaced with more narrow, fitting groups.

Before you make up your mind on that, you have to meet Joe.

Joe is a Concordant Killer (MMIV or MMV). He could be other things, but Concordant Killers fit Joe well because of their TN alignment and their blatantly obvious outsider type.

When Joe what back in 3.5, he was labeled an outsider, for good reason. He came from outside the Prime Material Plane, has all the common traits of outsiders, and even looked the part. Unfortunately for Joe, he wasn't cool enough to be updated to fourth edition.

Now fifth edition has come along, and Joe was found again by a WoTC employee who thought he was pretty cool and deserved a spot in the second Monster Manual.

Joe, by definition, is neither a celestial nor a fiend. He is too monstrous to be a humanoid, but not strange enough to be a monstrous humanoid or aberration. Joe really just looks like a being from the outer planes, which he is.

What type of monster is Joe?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

As hybrids between Celestials and Fiends, you can make a pretty good case for Concordant Killers as Aberrations.

Alternatively, you could treat them as having both the Celestial and Fiend types, as they are stated to have attributes of both.

What sort of holy warriors do Neutral gods use anyway?

In any case, if you don't have a Plane to call home, you arn't really an outsider.

[Envyus]

A Monstrosity. Which is stated to be were creatures that don't fit into other types go.

[DireSickFish]

What are Slaadi listed as? He'd probably be that.

[Beleriphon]

What are Slaadi listed as? He'd probably be that.

Slaadi are aberrations.

[DireSickFish]

Slaadi are aberrations.

Whaaat? That's crazy. I don't like that.

[Beleriphon]

Whaaat? That's crazy. I don't like that.

It kind of makes sense in that mind flayers are aberrations as well. They don't really fit into anything else since the "outsider" type doesn't specifically exist anymore and they aren't fiends or celestials. The green, grey and death slaadi have the shapechanger subtype as well. The aberration entry says that they are creatures that both alien physically as well as mentally, usually possessed of weird magical abilities. That sums the slaadi pretty well to me. As a point of comparison modrons are constructs now as well, so take that as you will.

[Inevitability]

Couatls are now weak CR4 celestials, instead of powerful Celestial Serpents of Good and Justice.

[DireSickFish]

Couatls are now weak CR4 celestials, instead of powerful Celestial Serpents of Good and Justice.Yeah, what's weird is that they are still lored as being guardians of good with long memories that are passed down from one to the next. But now they're lowbie guards who will need to go find the party or some other good group to actually do anything about a big threat. It's a nice niche but a completely different one than the big powerful forces of good they were in previous editions.

[...]

It seems that I am not the only spy the main reason that people like the removal of outsider is that it was too broad. Isn't that a fault of the writers more than a fault of the system? The "extraplanar" subtype exists for a reason. It's not Joe's fault that folks at WoTC weren't that liberal in using it.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Joe didnt make cosmological sense. Everyone has a home plane.

If Joe is a horrible hybrid of Fiend and Celestial that preys on both i think aberration is apropos!

[MeeposFire]

It seems that I am not the only spy the main reason that people like the removal of outsider is that it was too broad. Isn't that a fault of the writers more than a fault of the system? The "extraplanar" subtype exists for a reason. It's not Joe's fault that folks at WoTC weren't that liberal in using it.

But that is the thing isn't it? Why have a subtupe that covers so many vastly different creatures and then have to use a great number of subtypes when you can make it simpler by just having the subtypes and the like be types? Why is it better to have an outsider type if you can just have the fiend type, celestial type, or aberration? What does a sladd really have in common with a Deva that requires being the same type? Realy why would you want that outside of the fact that "3e did it"?

[Abithrios]

Isn't that pretty much was said? The LG guys will obey you, the CG guys... might or might not.

LG planetar: "Guys, there's a sign right there! No eating in the cathedral!"
CG eladrin: "[hides the cookies] Come on, we're not hurting anything."

The LG guys are predisposed to believe that whoever set the rules knows what they are doing, CG guys think rules were made for other people.

Chaotic alignment does not prevent you from trusting in the superior wisdom of someone whose wisdom is obviously superior. CG divine agents would still be as competent as LG. The difference is that LG agents would be assigned very specific tasks that they follow rigidly. CG agents would be pointed towards a problem, given what support they need, and expected to act in a more independent manner to solve the problem (or determine that there is no Good solution or that the alleged problem is not really as bad as was originally thought). Given the mental ability scores of the published angels, I would trust them to solve problems as they see fit without micromanaging them.

[Sartharina]

Chaotic alignment does not prevent you from trusting in the superior wisdom of someone whose wisdom is obviously superior. CG divine agents would still be as competent as LG. The difference is that LG agents would be assigned very specific tasks that they follow rigidly. CG agents would be pointed towards a problem, given what support they need, and expected to act in a more independent manner to solve the problem (or determine that there is no Good solution or that the alleged problem is not really as bad as was originally thought). Given the mental ability scores of the published angels, I would trust them to solve problems as they see fit without micromanaging them.

You are overestimating the rigidness of LG, and underestimating the capriciousness of CG.

[Abithrios]

You are overestimating the rigidness of LG, and underestimating the capriciousness of CG.

Perhaps, but not any more than you are overestimating the capriciousness of CG and overstating the need to be lawful in order to follow a higher power with whose goals are perfectly aligned with your own.

My real opinion is that angels should be strongly good aligned. On the other axis, I think they should have variation, but always be less lawful or less chaotic than they are good aligned. I would call them lG, nG, or cG, where the capitalized alignments are the one that is stronger (for example, lG is more good than lawful, and will choose good over law when absolutely necessary, but will always strive for both when possible).

On a more general note, alignment debates often have problems because the same pair of letters can correspond to wildly different worldviews and ethical principles, and many actions can be justified in terms of multiple alignments.

[Kyutaru]

I'm sure the players would love a world where Chaotic beings didn't obey their commanders.

Cryer: "Here ye! Here ye! Army of orcs heading for Waterdeep!"
Adventurers: "Okay. They'll probably all kill each other before getting ten miles."

[Oscredwin]

If you want to know what CG commanders and CG subordinates are like check out the Iam M Banks' Culture novels.

[Beleriphon]

If you want to know what CG commanders and CG subordinates are like check out the Iam M Banks' Culture novels.

A chaotic good commander is probably ruling by force of personality alone, so the followers will follow so long as the leader's instructions don't venture too far from the followers own views. Contrast with chaotic evil who rule by force of arms and the followers follow so long as the leader can kill any usurpers, if he can't then we're the usurper is now the new leader.

[KorvinStarmast]

DID YOU KNOW THAT

Piercers were originally in 2AD&D.

NOW YOU KNOW

Back on topic, Imma just going to complain again about the lack of outsider type.Did you know that ... you are incorrect?
Monster Manual, AD&D, 1e, page 78. Published 27 September 1977.