Your headcanons for those unanwered mysteries

[Jowgen]

There are plenty of things in the lore of the game settings that are brought up, or at least alluded to, but left unspecified. Sometimes this is even intentional.

From the top of my head, a big example would be the nature of "the serpent", Vecna's headvoice. The dragon mag article in the last issue and all its other mentions specify that it's unknown whether the serpent is some kind of magic entity, asmodeus in disguise, Vecna just being crazy, or something else entirely. A small one, by comparison, would be the nature/origins of the vestige Naberius.

In this thread, I'm simply curious about what sort of headcanons people have regarding this and other mysteries in the lore. They can be big obvious ones like the serpent, or even conspiracy theory-type stuff akin to the Burning Hate.

[Inevitability]

You may enjoy this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495880-Post-your-crazy-RPG-theories!) (technically still live) thread.

[Jowgen]

You may enjoy this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495880-Post-your-crazy-RPG-theories!) (technically still live) thread.

Your suspicions were well founded. I did enjoy quite a few of the contained theories. :smallsmile:

[Ruethgar]

After reading about the plane of Dreams I thought, "Why the hell is the Dreamheart so deadly?!" Then I read about the Leviathan in Elder Evils and instant head cannon that the Dreamheart is the Leviathan's Dreamscape and the signs are Planar Breaches.

[Inevitability]

After reading about the plane of Dreams I thought, "Why the hell is the Dreamheart so deadly?!" Then I read about the Leviathan in Elder Evils and instant head cannon that the Dreamheart is the Leviathan's Dreamscape and the signs are Planar Breaches.

That makes so much sense. Even better: a Leviathan campaign is now much more interesting.

[The Viscount]

Liches always fascinated me because they're the one undead who never died, so there's conclusive proof that the animating consciousness is the same one from when they were alive, since the argument can be made that a ghoul or vampire isn't actually the same mind it once was. The question then always remained why liches were all evil in core if there wasn't any vengeful Negative Energy aligned spirit animating their bodies.
I've always considered that liches (by default) are all evil because the "life force" stored inside the phylactery is in fact some vital portion of your soul, and that while your soul doesn't necessarily make you good, the loss of a large chunk will make you evil. Compare to Buffy's vampires or Harry Potter's Horcruxes.
Magic Jar's text tells us that a lich must still have its soul so it can't simply be the removal of it in its entirety, but it might still be some large chunk.

[Segev]

The question then always remained why liches were all evil in core if there wasn't any vengeful Negative Energy aligned spirit animating their bodies.

Canonically, the creation of the phylactery involves at least one "unspeakably evil" act, which is not specified, but seems to be of a sort that, by definition, if you commit it, you ARE evil.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Canonically, the creation of the phylactery involves at least one "unspeakably evil" act, which is not specified, but seems to be of a sort that, by definition, if you commit it, you ARE evil.
Also canonically, good liches with phylacteries exist, though the power to not need a phylactery seems to be good-only.

[Echch]

My biggest headcanon is concerning the events of "DIE VECNA DIE": The Serpent and the Lady of Pain are two sides of the same coin, with one representing Chaos and Change (and as such, the thing that creates change beyond what can normally be achieved: Magic) and the other representing Law and Order (even acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner within her own realm).

The conflict is spawned by the events that transition the 1st edition to the 2nd edition, or rather, what happens to the LAWS concerning gods. In 1st ed, gods were strong, but could easily beaten, or rather, the authority at power could be CHANGED if someone was determined enough to do so. In 2nd ed, however, true gods were unbeatable and static, only being capable of getting changed in insanely exotic circumstances, leaving the mortals forever powerless against their temper tantrums, something which went against the very nature of the Serpent while very much favoring the Lady's.

So the Serpent hatched a plan: It cannot leave it's confinements the same way the Lady of Pain cannot leave Sigil. So instead, it has to use a mortal to do the dirty work for it. Said mortal was Vecna.

What followed were Vecna's life and the events leading up to "DIE VECNA DIE". During the events of the adventure, the Serpent aided Vecna in entering Sigil. The moment Vecna entered Sigil, the Lady had to come to the realization that she dun goofed: A true deity was untouchable, even for her. The adventure suggests as much should the heroes fail and even goes out of it's way to say that the Lady cannot beat Vecna without using her full power to change that "Untouchable Gods"-Law, compromising the multiverse in the process.

That insight was what made her rely on the heroes, after all.
While the people of Sigil assembled, Vecna was getting ready for his last game: Again, the book suggests that Vecna isn't sure he'll have any say in recreating the multiverse. Yet, in an attempt to serve the Serpent and allowing the mortals to choose for themselves, he slowly changed the multiverse, giving up his "true immortality", strenghtening the connection of all mortals to his master and thus magic (which is why Spellcasting is so OP in 3rd ed) while depowering the gods to the level they used to be. Sadly, he was cut short by the adventuring party, resulting in gods still having the incredible powers as described in Deities&Demigods, even if that still is a massive downgrade from "unbeatable save for fiat".

After Vecna had been banished from Sigil, the Lady errected wards to prevent that from happening. Luckily, she couldn't just undo all changes Vecna had made. The biggest one was a specific spell: The Wish spell. A spell which can transport beings... Say, Greater Deities, and put them somewhere regardless of local conditions like wards... Say, Sigil.

The endresult was mortals getting a fighting chance to change the world, like the Serpent intended, and a reminder to the Lady that her beloved rules have changed: Would she attempt to make the Multiverse static once more, he will have Vecna come over again. He is no match in combat for her, not anymore, but he can still disrupt and destroy Sigil's core and "restart" the universe. Mutually assured destruction. The Lady wouldn't like her rules to get trashed and is thus likely not to attempt such a thing ever again.

As for the Serpent... Well, the destruction and rebirth of the Multiverse would clearly be a big change... And that's right up it's alley.

[Darrin]

Not quite headcanon for D&D exactly... but there's a cantrip in Dragon #302 called resize. It changes the size of non-magical armor or clothing. The effect is permanent. Increasing the size of clothing doubles it's price. Gnomes have bard as a favored class, and can cast this cantrip at 1st level.

Resize is the missing step in the Underpants Gnomes' business plan.

[Bad Wolf]

My theory is that the Lady of Pain is a prisoner. She's not keeping gods away from her, something's keeping her away from them.

[Jowgen]

My theory is that the Lady of Pain is a prisoner. She's not keeping gods away from her, something's keeping her away from them.

I like this and have run with a similar thing in the past; although I have heard claims that there have been instances where she's left Sigil?


Not quite headcanon for D&D exactly... but there's a cantrip in Dragon #302 called resize. It changes the size of non-magical armor or clothing. The effect is permanent. Increasing the size of clothing doubles it's price. Gnomes have bard as a favored class, and can cast this cantrip at 1st level.

Resize is the missing step in the Underpants Gnomes' business plan.

This is beautiful.


Liches always fascinated me because they're the one undead who never died, so there's conclusive proof that the animating consciousness is the same one from when they were alive, since the argument can be made that a ghoul or vampire isn't actually the same mind it once was. The question then always remained why liches were all evil in core if there wasn't any vengeful Negative Energy aligned spirit animating their bodies.
I've always considered that liches (by default) are all evil because the "life force" stored inside the phylactery is in fact some vital portion of your soul, and that while your soul doesn't necessarily make you good, the loss of a large chunk will make you evil. Compare to Buffy's vampires or Harry Potter's Horcruxes.
Magic Jar's text tells us that a lich must still have its soul so it can't simply be the removal of it in its entirety, but it might still be some large chunk.

You might find it interesting to know that the Ritual of Faith (DMG II) can be used by 3rd level clerics with enough resources to create Phylacteries (this is quite explicit) and thus become Liches; without any of that level/feat-requirement drag.


After reading about the plane of Dreams I thought, "Why the hell is the Dreamheart so deadly?!" Then I read about the Leviathan in Elder Evils and instant head cannon that the Dreamheart is the Leviathan's Dreamscape and the signs are Planar Breaches.

I've actually had the same thing, but with the The Sleeping Deep Dragons that Io (according to the old Monster Mythology book) supposedly placed at the core of several material plane worlds for reasons unknown. Then again, there is a pretty convincing argument (http://web.archive.org/web/20160421154531/http://canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Io#The_Sleeping_Deep_Dragons)that a given Leviathan is the same thing as said deep dragon.

[Segev]

Also canonically, good liches with phylacteries exist, though the power to not need a phylactery seems to be good-only.

Really? Where are these printed? Are they mechanically distinct/different from evil/traditional liches?

[asnys]

Really? Where are these printed? Are they mechanically distinct/different from evil/traditional liches?

Good liches appear in Monsters of Faerun. Dunno if they show up anywhere else. I don't remember if they're mechanically any different.

[The Viscount]

There are also Good Liches presented in Libris Mortis as a CR +1 variant (with no mention of LA) that can turn undead as a cleric of its HD and is immune to turning, instead being turned/destroyed with rebuking.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Really? Where are these printed? Are they mechanically distinct/different from evil/traditional liches?
There are two types of good lich in Monsters of Faerûn.

The first is a generic 'good lich', the archlich, basically the opposite to an evil lich. They get permanent water walk, animate dead as SLA (CL = character level), turn undead (no level specified), and turning immunity (rebuke affects them as turn). These are the guys I meant when I said "good lich with a phylactery".

The second is the baelnorn, an ancient elven lord/lady, dispensing advice to their community. They do not have phylacteries or fear auras, and gain turn undead and the ability to form projections. Projection (Su) is nuts. The connection between lich and projection "transcends physical and all known magical barriers", you can cast spells through your projection, and it can travel between material and ethereal, seeing on both planes at once, with no range limit mentioned.

[Inevitability]

Really? Where are these printed? Are they mechanically distinct/different from evil/traditional liches?

Aside from the already given answers, there's also the possibility of a lich putting on a Helm of Opposite Alignment.

[Bohandas]

I've always considered that liches (by default) are all evil because the "life force" stored inside the phylactery is in fact some vital portion of your soul, and that while your soul doesn't necessarily make you good, the loss of a large chunk will make you evil. Compare to Buffy's vampires or Harry Potter's Horcruxes.

I always thought the major issue with horcruxes was more that the process of creating them involved ritual human sacrifice

[KillianHawkeye]

I always thought the major issue with horcruxes was more that the process of creating them involved ritual human sacrifice

Really? I'm pretty sure Voldemort created his last one by accident when he killed Harry's mother.

[Bohandas]

Really? I'm pretty sure Voldemort created his last one by accident when he killed Harry's mother.

Strike the ritual part then

[DrMotives]

Right, and 2e & 2e description for a lich required more than the 3.x version of a lich does. If you were to port 2e liches to 3e, they would require the brew potion feat as well as craft wondrous, and the potion recipe was explicit to include a variety of poisons, plus the heart of a sentient being killed for the sole purpose of brewing the lich potion. You couldn't take the heart of anyone killed by chance in battle or whatnot, had to be ritual lich potion murder. So that sealed their fate as evil.

My favorite old lich mechanic though is the vassalich. A vassalich is a lich who fails to meet the caster level requirements for lichdom, so they can't make their own phylactery. Instead, the have a liege lich, who allows the vassal's soul to lice with them in the master's phylactery. The master can snuff out the vassal soul at any time, unless the vassal can secretly make a new phylactery on their own. So, most vassals are killed by their masters when they start getting close to the CL requirement to do it themselves.

[Tiri]

Liches always fascinated me because they're the one undead who never died, so there's conclusive proof that the animating consciousness is the same one from when they were alive, since the argument can be made that a ghoul or vampire isn't actually the same mind it once was. The question then always remained why liches were all evil in core if there wasn't any vengeful Negative Energy aligned spirit animating their bodies.
I've always considered that liches (by default) are all evil because the "life force" stored inside the phylactery is in fact some vital portion of your soul, and that while your soul doesn't necessarily make you good, the loss of a large chunk will make you evil. Compare to Buffy's vampires or Harry Potter's Horcruxes.
Magic Jar's text tells us that a lich must still have its soul so it can't simply be the removal of it in its entirety, but it might still be some large chunk.

Well, there are other examples of undead having the same consciousness as their living selves.

Wraiths, for example, explicitly have the same soul as when they lived, the wraith being the disembodied soul.

[DrMotives]

Well, there are other examples of undead having the same consciousness as their living selves.

Wraiths, for example, explicitly have the same soul as when they lived, the wraith being the disembodied soul.

I like the idea that ghouls, shadows, and wights don't have the same consciousness as when they were alive, the mind in those undead has no relation to the original mind of the donor person. The annoyingly dispellable "awaken undead" spell does the same thing; allows a new mind to exist in an undead body. So that means, if a ghoul or wight were to become redeemed and later killed, where does that soul go? Could it be called back with a True Resurrection spell targeting not the original living person but the later redeemed undead mind? Would someone want to do that, and how would it all work out?

[Pronounceable]

I think Asmodeus is a big doodoo head who just grandstands and claims everything has gone according to plan after the fact.

I like Darkmoon Heresy. I don't like believing it true but I like it exists, because it's totally a thing that would exist if Selune and Shar were real. As would theology crazies who write their slash fanfiction (along with Heironeous+Hextor and Tymora+Beshaba fanfics polluting the fantasy internet*).I'm sure some deviant out there has already written something like this on irl internet too but I'm not gonna go looking.

[Bohandas]

Right, and 2e & 2e description for a lich required more than the 3.x version of a lich does. If you were to port 2e liches to 3e, they would require the brew potion feat as well as craft wondrous, and the potion recipe was explicit to include a variety of poisons, plus the heart of a sentient being killed for the sole purpose of brewing the lich potion. You couldn't take the heart of anyone killed by chance in battle or whatnot, had to be ritual lich potion murder. So that sealed their fate as evil.

What if they were paired with the adventurers from This Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?510428-Morality-Question-To-Kill-Or-Not-to-Kill-A-Wyrmling-Red-Dragon)

[RedMage125]

You may enjoy this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495880-Post-your-crazy-RPG-theories!) (technically still live) thread.
Ooh, I read a litle of that thread, but don't want to get sidetracked, so I will also post this on the thread that you linked.

My theory (which I am pretty sure is correct), is about Vecna's phylactery. That is, to say, I think I know where it is.

According to greyhawk lore, Vecna is not only an ancient lich, he is, in fact, the first lich. he was one of the authors of the Book of Vile Darkness, he ruled an empire, etc. And, most important to this theory, he CRAFTED the sword which he eventually granted to his vampire Lieutenant, Kas. Now, by 3e standards, Vecna was, by all accounts, an epic level wizard. And Kas was a Fighter. We all know that epic level wizards have so many defenses that physical threats pose no threat to them at all. Even taken by surprise, after one round of combat, the wizard would have no problem obliterating said Fighter, right?

So...how did Kas manage to cut through all of Vecna's protections enough to sever his hand and eye?

The answer is, of course, that Vecna's own protective spells recognized the sword Kas was using as a part of Vecna himself, so they cut right through every magical protection on him. Because the Sword of Kas is (or contains, perhaps as a gem in the hilt) Vecna's phylactery, and thus his soul.



The question then always remained why liches were all evil in core if there wasn't any vengeful Negative Energy aligned spirit animating their bodies.


Canonically, the creation of the phylactery involves at least one "unspeakably evil" act, which is not specified, but seems to be of a sort that, by definition, if you commit it, you ARE evil.


Also canonically, good liches with phylacteries exist, though the power to not need a phylactery seems to be good-only.

Oh, oh! I know this one!

The process of creating ANY undead creature, by any means, is an evil act. The BoVD explicitly says that creating such a "mockery of nature" is an evil act. This is why all spells that create undead have the [Evil] descriptor, because the only thing those spells DO is an objectively Evil act. This is also why mindless undead such as zombies and skeletons have an Evil alignment. The evil magicks that animate them mean that Evil is inherent to their nature, much like fiends. The specific rules regarding evil inherent to one's physical nature supercede the general rules regarding non-sentient beings necessitating a Neutral alignment. All undead are animated by evil magicks, regardless of their actual alignment. you will note, on a Detect Evil spell, that ALL undead register as evil under that spell. Now, there are no rules saying they are affected by Smite Evil, Holy Word, Holy Smite, etc. Which is different than other beings with Evil as part of their nature (fiends). A Lawful Good demon (like the much-vaunted succubus paladin) would register on all 4 "detect" spells, and would suffer from all 4 "smite/word" spells, and so on.

Anyway, I got sidetracked. Creating a phylactery may be an "unspeakably evil" act, but one act does not alter one's alignment (DMG page 134). Certainly, in order to find this "unspeakably evil" act morally acceptable (especially in order to accomplish such a selfish end as prolonging one's own life), a given NPC is very likely already evil. The lich template also specifies "any evil" as the alignment of a lich. But nothing in the canon RAW necessitates that the lich remain evil after accomplishing this (although 5e answered this nicely by specifying that liches must continue to sacrifice living people to continue "powering" their phylacteries, this is not true in other editions). A lich may, after becoming a lich, behave in a manner more consistent with a god or neutral alignment sufficent to alter its alignment away from evil (as per the alignment changing rules in the DMG, page 134).

Baelnorns are a specific exception to the phylactery rule, but those are FR-specific, and specifically elven. Elves in FR had access to a lot of magic that broke normal magic rules (mythals, Elven High Magic, and so on). Even non-evil normal liches (and archliches) have phylacteries. One of my favorite NPCs in my home campaign world is a True Neutral Diviner lich named Bernard. He used to be human, and a historian, but felt that he did not have enough time. He knew the process of becoming a lich was evil, but after he did it, he retreated from the world, living in a cursed, undead-haunted ruin (the rest of the undead leave him alone), while he scrys on the world, recording history, and periodically making copies of his histories and sending them to libraries all over the world. He only kills in self-defense (usually misguided adventurers who refuse to discuss things reasonably).

I got sidetracked again, sorry. Point is, by RAW, creation of ANY undead creature (including turning yourself into one) is an evil act. Also by RAW, creating a phylactery involves an "unspeakably evil" act. And by RAW, upon the initial acquisition of the lich template, a lich is evil. But they need not remain so.

[Bohandas]

I think Asmodeus is a big doodoo head who just grandstands and claims everything has gone according to plan after the fact.

The same for the Lady of Pain. And on a related note, my headcanon for Sigil is that it's primacy and relevance among the planes was attained entirely through the outer planar paradigm of belief=power, with the city having little legitimate relevance on it's own merits but nonetheless coming to be the focus of planar upneavals as a side-effet of people thinking it's important; this creates a self-reinforcing cycle.

And it's not just a mundane matter of a normal city being elevated to legendary status through good PR like New York either. Even if the place were to be scoured of all permanent residents as well as conventional travelers, tourists, and passers-by, due to the way the outer planes work major events would still find a way of passing through the place until word got out that it was abandoned. Conversely, if the many people who know about Sigil but don't interact with the city stopped caring about it the city would cease to be relevant even to the majority of the people who do interact with it. Moving goods through unreliable doorway sized keyed portals represents a major bottleneck not posed by the rivers styx and oceanus, and mot posed by the gate towns. The city also poses limitations not shared by the infinite staircase, not least of which being fiddly portal keys, and the fact that it was originally administered by loonies and now is apparently administered by no one (it's apathetic landlord and her personal staff who speak exclusively in riddles notwithstanding)

[Bohandas]

The process of creating ANY undead creature, by any means, is an evil act. The BoVD explicitly says that creating such a "mockery of nature" is an evil act.[/url]

Which always struck me as strange as nature is explicitly neuttal in D&D and there are evil nature deities.

[QUOTE=RedMage125;21549697]you will note, on a Detect Evil spell, that ALL undead register as evil under that spell.

It's arguable that they may register under all the detect spells as the text for the others basically sums up to "detect evil, but for x alignment instead of evil" and with no mention of not detecting undead

On a different note, I think the optimal fix for the other spells would involve not just removing undead from the list, but also adding another cdeature type in their place. Consfructs for Detect Law, perhaps Fey for Detect Chaos, and I don't know what for Detect Good

[RedMage125]

The process of creating ANY undead creature, by any means, is an evil act. The BoVD explicitly says that creating such a "mockery of nature" is an evil act.[/url]

Which always struck me as strange as nature is explicitly neuttal in D&D and there are evil nature deities.
Deities who only specifically embody destructive forces of nature, and revel in such...Umberlee, Talos, Malar, etc. Malar, for example, may be a nature deity, but he is cruel and takes joy in slaughter for its own sake.




It's arguable that they may register under all the detect spells as the text for the others basically sums up to "detect evil, but for x alignment instead of evil" and with no mention of not detecting undead

On a different note, I think the optimal fix for the other spells would involve not just removing undead from the list, but also adding another cdeature type in their place. Consfructs for Detect Law, perhaps Fey for Detect Chaos, and I don't know what for Detect Good

Pathfinder fixed this by making it "aligned undead" under that heading.