PDA

View Full Version : Becoming a Lich during a campaign.



Fruan
2007-07-19, 07:26 AM
So, I have a player who's starting to express interest in becoming a Lich. I'm eying up that +4 LA, and an idea is starting to come to me as to how to deal with gaining it in play.


I'm envisioning a psuedo-prestige class, which is actually a set of templates, allowing you to level up with the rest of your party, eventually ending up as a fully blown lich, without your ECL ever exceeding that of anyone else at the table.

Fluff wise, I envision this as the evil magics taking a while to permeate your now dead body, and the decay of your once mortal flesh similarly not being instant.


Currently, I'm thinking something along the lines of

LA +1 mini-lich template: Lose your con score. Gain undead traits. All hit dice you have worse than a d6 are replaced with a d6.

LA +2 mini-lich template: As above, except all hit dice you have worse than a d8 are replaced by a d8. Gain DR 5 bludgeoning or magic. Gains negative energy touch attack as per a Lich, but without chance of paralysis.

LA +3 mini-lich template: As above, except all hit dice you have worse than a d10 are replaced by a d10. DR improves to 10/bludgeon or magic. Gains Fear Aura, as per a Lich.

LA +4 full Lich template, as usual.

Once you've started the process by qualifying for Lichhood in the usual way, you're unable to take any class levels until you've qualified for the full Lich template.

The only problem I forsee is the paperwork in rerolling your hit dice all the damn time. As my campaign has everyone taking average HP rather than rolling, this shouldn't be a problem, but without this house rule it gets ugly.

I can't see any other problems with this idea, the abilities feel spread out in such a way that the player undergoing the transformation doesn't get bored every time the party levels and the rest of the group don't feel slighted that someone shot out 3 ECL ahead of them for a while. But I freely admit to not being uber experienced- Any comments on unforseen consequences I might not be noticing?

giblina
2007-07-19, 07:44 AM
I dunno. The rules already specify the process for becoming a Lich, and it only costs 4800 XP, not 4 full levels worth of XP.

Were it me, I would allow it (as written) but I would stress beforehand that it's going to make some aspects of adventuring very difficult, and I would make good on that threat afterwards.

For example, the description of a devil's fear aura suggests that it can be turned on and off. The description of a lich's suggests that it's always on. So a lich can't go into town to shop (unless he wants to start a riot), he always has to have underlings of some kind do this for him (this would be house ruling though, because the base description of fear aura says it's usable as a free action still).

As word gets around about such an evil menace on the loose, I would also not be surprised if the occasional band of good folks (paladins, clerics, etc) tried to hunt him down and kill him (and as undead, he's susceptible to turning, though he does get +4 turn resistance).

There's also some question about whether, from an RP standpoint, the party's goals will always align with the liches. Liches are super-evil. They're not going to help fight back some werewolf threat or whatever... they'd pretty much only join adventures which increase their power (especially their arcane power), otherwise they'd just sit around in their crypt researching spells.

its_all_ogre
2007-07-19, 07:54 AM
yeah they'd just gain xp as a character 4 levels higher than the rest of the group. a lich is not that much harder than a similar level pc, don't make it worse!! (imo)

Joltz
2007-07-19, 07:57 AM
imo, the transformation to being a litch is supposed to go very quickly. You die and turn into a crazy(er) undead-type person. That's how it works. It's not like lycanthropy gradually affects you or something.

A note on the gradual HD change too. Undead need those d12 HDs to stay competitive without a con modifier. In the early parts of your transformation the subject wold have really low HP, something like 19*3.5+6=73 hp average at first stage for a level 20 character.

lukelightning
2007-07-19, 08:00 AM
There is a lich template class (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20031212a) on the Wizard's of the Coast site.

SolkaTruesilver
2007-07-19, 08:01 AM
Liches are not always evil.

Read the alignement of Vampire: Always evil (any)

alignement of Liches: Evil (Any)

but there are no good liches. So Neutral would be the best alignement you could have. But still considered an abomination by pretty much everyone..

except some cults who are more open-minded.. like the cult of Shehahinne Moonbow.. but you'd better be an elf, and have a damned good reason

lukelightning
2007-07-19, 08:10 AM
But remember that "The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil." I guess it's up to the DM to determine what this is, but it is definitely more evil than simple murder or putting Ex-Lax in the ranger's trail rations. Unspeakably evil isn't even used to describe demons and devils!

I personally don't have much truck with non-evil liches...even if you think you are a good or neutral, becoming a lich warps and perverts your personality and soul so you are evil.

And don't forget that undead radiate an evil aura regardless of their alignment (see detect evil).

giblina
2007-07-19, 08:13 AM
"Lich Characters

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

and

"Fear Aura (Su)

Liches are shrouded in a dreadful aura of death and evil. "

If it the alignment field says "evil (any)", and the description about becoming a lich says that it's "unspeakably evil", and liches exude a 60' radius "dreadful aura of death and evil", I think it's safe to assume that all of that means that your character is evil w/o exception.

There are no lawful-neutral liches who join the city guard, there are no true neutral liches who defend the woodlands, and there are no chaotic-neutral liches who are merry pranksters and get a job at the weasley's prank shop in Harry Potter.

Overlard
2007-07-19, 08:17 AM
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the dread necromancer from heroes of horror. You become a lich at level 20, slowly gaining the benefits of lichdom on the way. And you don't have to be evil, just non-good.

Tengu
2007-07-19, 08:18 AM
There are no lawful-neutral liches who join the city guard, there are no true neutral liches who defend the woodlands, and there are no chaotic-neutral liches who are merry pranksters and get a job at the weasley's prank shop in Harry Potter.

But there are lawful good liches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baelnorn) (in Forgotten Realms).

giblina
2007-07-19, 08:24 AM
It says Baelnorn are "lich-like", not liches :)

As for dread necromancers, can't help ya there (except to say my DM ruling would be that a dread necromancer becomes evil as soon as he aquires the lich template. The "non-good" rule would apply to his career as a living creature.)

Leon
2007-07-19, 08:26 AM
Any non Good if you follow the path to a Dry Lich

Iron Lich's are Usually Neutral Evil

SolkaTruesilver
2007-07-19, 08:29 AM
An evil act doesn't make your alignement evil

So, even if the act of becoming a lich is utterly evil, it doesn't make your alignement evil. However, you still radiate evil, since your very existence is agains the rules of universe.

But I don't see why there would not be "neutral liches" who act for the common good. They would be mostly soloers, however. Since nobody would actually believe that you are on the side of good...

I guess leaving my phylacterie in the hands of the cult of Shehahine Moonbow (I can't spell her name, grrrr) would be proof ennough...

lukelightning
2007-07-19, 08:32 AM
There are no lawful-neutral liches who join the city guard..

Roll call for Merryton's town watch:
"Devan Conner?"
"Here."
"Marlow Shandon""
"Here."
"Elspereth Quickbow?"
"Present."
"Maldark, Bringer of Doom, Plague of Nations, Overlord of Undeath and Unholy Reaper?"
"Yo."

giblina
2007-07-19, 08:40 AM
An evil act doesn't make your alignement evil

Sure it can, especially if the act is evil enough (and the act of becoming a lich is supposed to be). You can't sacrifice an infant on the altar of Nerull while denouncing the good gods and not have that change you.


So, even if the act of becoming a lich is utterly evil, it doesn't make your alignement evil. However, you still radiate evil, since your very existence is agains the rules of universe.

See above.


But I don't see why there would not be "neutral liches" who act for the common good. They would be mostly soloers, however. Since nobody would actually believe that you are on the side of good...

For starters, what you described is not a neutral lich, but a good lich. If you're acting for the common good, and you're on the side of good, then you're good, not neutral.

Liches aren't evil because they smell like rotten eggs. They're evil because their minds are so perverted with thirst for arcane power that they have literally sold their soul to evil in exchange for untold power. They've bargained away the last remnants of their humanity for immortality.

I know that the "dark hero" concept is appealing, and people want to play Spawn or whatever, but the Liche template isn't really intended for that. It's intended for a character who knowingly and willingly throws away everything that was good and decent about themselves in pursuit of power and immortality. "The common good" is so far removed from their goals and pursuits it's ridiculous. They're "free willed", but not "free aligned". They are forever cursed to spend the rest of their dark existence seeking out more powerful magics.



I guess leaving my phylacterie in the hands of the cult of Shehahine Moonbow (I can't spell her name, grrrr) would be proof ennough...

They would crush it like an egg. Seriously... they're undead hunters. Don't pee all over the background lore just because you want a good lich :smalltongue:

Tyger
2007-07-19, 08:45 AM
All other arguments aside, there is nothing to prevent, as always, a DM from allowing a non-evil lich, especially as there are precedents in the rules for such.

It could even provide an excellent character concept. Torn apart by the guilt of the acts he committed to achieve the semi-immortality he has, lich-lord Sharinth'kal has dedicated his (un)life to the eradication of evil, and carefully watches over his mortal family and their allies, protecting them from all enemies.

And one could, in theory, have a very good (good in the moral sense) reason for becoming a lich. So the character could well be good, and do something unspeakably evil to become a lich, in order to continue that good work. The angst and whatnot associated with the acts would lead to interesting situations.

And yes, the Dread Necromancer gets lich template at 20th level, with no LA, and there is nothing in the DN class descritption to state that the alignments change is automatic. It can certainly be interpreted that the application of the template causes the change, but thats an interpretation, not a rule.


They would crush it like an egg. Seriously... they're undead hunters. Don't pee all over the background lore just because you want a good lich :smalltongue:

Actually, if I recall correctly, they actually have liches in their ranks... or at least lich-like folks. These are the "good" liches that were previously mentioned.

SilverClawShift
2007-07-19, 08:47 AM
There are no lawful-neutral liches who join the city guard, there are no true neutral liches who defend the woodlands, and there are no chaotic-neutral liches who are merry pranksters and get a job at the weasley's prank shop in Harry Potter.

Unless your DM wants there to be, and agrees to let you be one for some specific reason.

Unless we're doing the "You're playing the game wrong!!!" thing :smallwink:

mudbunny
2007-07-19, 08:48 AM
An evil act doesn't make your alignement evil

So, even if the act of becoming a lich is utterly evil, it doesn't make your alignement evil. However, you still radiate evil, since your very existence is agains the rules of universe.

Umm, yeah it does.

The Lich Template (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm) gives, as alignment, Any Evil. That means that, when you become a lich, you become Lawful/Neutral/chaotic Evil.

When you look at the rules for applying a template (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#templates) to a creature, it specifically states under alignment:

Alignment

Usually the same as the base creature, unless the template is associated with a certain alignment.

The lich template is associated with Any Evil. Thus, your alignment becomes lawful/neutral/chaotic evil.

Tyger
2007-07-19, 08:50 AM
Umm, yeah it does.

The Lich Template (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm) gives, as alignment, Any Evil. That means that, when you become a lich, you become Lawful/Neutral/chaotic Evil.

When you look at the rules for applying a template (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#templates) to a creature, it specifically states under alignment:

Alignment

Usually the same as the base creature, unless the template is associated with a certain alignment.

The lich template is associated with Any Evil. Thus, your alignment becomes lawful/neutral/chaotic evil.

Conversely, there is also nothing in the rules to prevent a lich (who started out evil) from becoming good. Alignment is always mutable.

SolkaTruesilver
2007-07-19, 08:51 AM
They would crush it like an egg. Seriously... they're undead hunters. Don't pee all over the background lore just because you want a good lich :smalltongue:

Since I don't have any description of her cult from official source, I will use a wikiquote, from this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sehanine_Moonbow



Worshipers of Sehanine Moonbow seek out and destroy undead creatures, for Sehanine holds such creatures -- with the notable exceptions of baelnorn and other good-aligned undead beings who voluntarily prolong their existence in order to serve their kin -- to be blasphemous.

I think becoming a lich qualifies. Off course, if there are ways of becoming lich-like without actually being a lich, I'd take it any days. But not CORE.

Funkyodor
2007-07-19, 08:52 AM
Alright, one evil act on its own probably wont change your alignment directly to evil. But, an Unspeakably Evil act? An act so evil they can't describe it because it is unspeakable? I'm sure that would change you to somewhat evil, if not pure evil.

"Ah that Maldark, Bringer of Doom, Plague of Nations, Overlord of Undeath and Unholy Reaper is a swell guy. I mean he did willingly do one unspeakable act of utter evil involving babies, mothers, knives, and some contract with a minor, and I mean minor, devil. But hes gotten past that. I still quake in my boots sometimes when I look in his queerly illumiated eye socket, but hes been babysitting and I think he's gonna come out fine."

rashambo
2007-07-19, 08:55 AM
At a point like that, it might be time to retire the character. Liches tend not to adventure too much unless they have a huge army or the like. That's like a major goal.

I played a Dragon Disciple that after hitting half-dragon, became a cleric of Bahamut. When we hit 20th, we decided to retire the game and give everyone big endings. Mine became a full silver dragon. Very awesome IMHO, but where do you go after that?

There is a template on the SRD, it can be done as early as 12th level. As far as the +4 level jump, one way to think about it is I started a game of DragonStar years ago, one character insisted on being a drow/ half dragon. All the special abilities stacked and you had a first level character with a +8 level mod. He would have been 14th level before getting two attacks. About 6th level (for everyone else), the other gamers began overpowering his munchkin character. That +4 equals levels he won't get. His XP to reach 13th should be 16th's XP.

mudbunny
2007-07-19, 08:57 AM
Conversely, there is also nothing in the rules to prevent a lich (who started out evil) from becoming good. Alignment is always mutable.

No, there is nothing saying that the alignment can't shift away from evil, but, no matter what alignment you started with, the mere act of going through the steps to become a lich switches your alignment to evil.

giblina
2007-07-19, 09:04 AM
Liches are free of will, but not free of alignment. They have no soul (it's been stashed away in a prison), and as such, they have no means of redemption. They lack the capacity to even desire to change.

They're like the terminator from T1 with his chip still in... they can think, and choose different courses of action, but they're singular of focus and there is nothing whatsoever that can sway them from that. They don't feel pity or remorse or fear, and they absolutely will not stop until they're the undisputed master of all arcane power in the universe.

Funkyodor gets it perfectly ;)

Tyger
2007-07-19, 09:11 AM
Liches are free of will, but not free of alignment. They have no soul (it's been stashed away in a prison), and as such, they have no means of redemption. They lack the capacity to even desire to change.

They're like the terminator from T1 with his chip still in... they can think, and choose different courses of action, but they're singular of focus and there is nothing whatsoever that can sway them from that. They don't feel pity or remorse or fear, and they absolutely will not stop until they're the undisputed master of all arcane power in the universe.

Funkyodor gets it perfectly ;)

This is great flavour and interpretation, but its not RAW. Just to be clear. There is no where in the Lich template where it says they don't feel pity, remorse or fear. No where does it say they can't desire change. I like your interpretation, but that's what it is, interpretation.

giblina
2007-07-19, 09:14 AM
The liche template lacks a qualifier on the alignment field.

Creatures that are "always evil" can't change.

Creatures that are "usually evil" can.

Liche just says "evil" so it's not clear which it is. My own interpretation from the rest of the creature description is that it's solidly in the category of "always evil".

I'm not omniscient though, so who knows what lurked in the minds of the SRD authors ;)

- Syll

SolkaTruesilver
2007-07-19, 09:16 AM
"Ah that Maldark, Bringer of Doom, Plague of Nations, Overlord of Undeath and Unholy Reaper is a swell guy. I mean he did willingly do one unspeakable act of utter evil involving babies, mothers, knives, and some contract with a minor, and I mean minor, devil. But hes gotten past that. I still quake in my boots sometimes when I look in his queerly illumiated eye socket, but hes been babysitting and I think he's gonna come out fine."

"Raukaith, the Demon-Hunter, Slayer of the Cult of Bamophet chills me out a little.. I mean, sure, a century ago, he saved the world three our four times against an army of demons, and never asked a thing in return. He could even have become a powerful tyrant, but the only thing he asked was a small piece of small estate nobody wanted for his wizard tower. He even continued doing good deeds for the peoples over time.. But there is this one this, I guess, that makes me think of him as an absolute evil man. Yhea, I heard he became an undead. It doesn't matter to me that he saved the lives in the city against the dragon, three months ago, and helped repair the damages. To me, he's still a bad guy, and somebody should destroy him."

Now, is it me, or that guy would be totally stupid?

A lich has free will, he became a lich for one reason, and is totally focused on that reason. That reason does not have to be "Supreme Arcane power", and the lich could even be ready to renounce Lichdom once the task is finished.

Except if it's an open-ended goal, like "protecting my elven homeland". Yhea, he gave a lot, but because his goal means even more to him.

giblina
2007-07-19, 09:23 AM
Alignment is focused around the motives as much as the results. It's internal, not external.

Just because some sucker of a peasant didn't realize that a lich lured a demonic army to their village so he could enslave a lesser demon and learn it's secrets...

Just because that same fool of a villager had no idea that the same lich had discovered that an ancient temple of Pelor was buried beneath that hill and meant to defile the temple and steal it's secrets...

Just because that same absolute moron of a villager didn't realize that liches don't make legitimate "bargains" and the mayor of his town entered into a dark pact whereby a child would be given to the lich at the start of each season for a dark ritual...

Just because this same absolute dretch of a beggar of a peasant has no idea that the lich baited the dragon there because the lich had divined that the dragon had an item he needed...

None of this makes the lich a good guy. It just makes the peasant a chump.

Dausuul
2007-07-19, 09:23 AM
At a point like that, it might be time to retire the character. Liches tend not to adventure too much unless they have a huge army or the like. That's like a major goal.

Actually, I see no reason why a lich wouldn't be an aggressive and active adventurer, seeking power and knowledge no matter the danger. After all, he's not nearly as squishy as a normal arcane caster--between his d12 Hit Dice, his DR, his +5 natural armor, and undead immunities, he's very tough to kill. And if he does get killed, what does he care? He'll be back again in 1d10 days. All he needs is a reliable way to recover his lost equipment.


"Raukaith, the Demon-Hunter, Slayer of the Cult of Bamophet chills me out a little.. I mean, sure, a century ago, he saved the world three our four times against an army of demons, and never asked a thing in return. He could even have become a powerful tyrant, but the only thing he asked was a small piece of small estate nobody wanted for his wizard tower. He even continued doing good deeds for the peoples over time.. But there is this one this, I guess, that makes me think of him as an absolute evil man. Yhea, I heard he became an undead. It doesn't matter to me that he saved the lives in the city against the dragon, three months ago, and helped repair the damages. To me, he's still a bad guy, and somebody should destroy him."

Aren't you kind of glossing over the bit where he commits an "unspeakably evil" act in the process of becoming undead? We're not talking about making faces at a baby here.

Person_Man
2007-07-19, 09:23 AM
Lich Template Class (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20031212a). Allows your player to take class levels in the Lich template, thus fixing any balance problems.

giblina
2007-07-19, 09:26 AM
I think it's not so much that liches don't adventure, it's just that their priorities change in a manner that's not always conducive to being a member of a broad party.

Treasure isn't the only motivator for a party going on an adventure. Sometimes there's a threat to a town or just the occasional good deed, and the liche isn't always going to be able to justify leaving to assist with such causes (as opposed to staying home and researching new dark spells or divining the locations of ancient artifacts).

If the party wants to essentially work for the lich, and only do the stuff the lich wants to do, then you're fine, but it won't always turn out that way.

mudbunny
2007-07-19, 09:27 AM
Lich Template Class (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20031212a). Allows your player to take class levels in the Lich template, thus fixing any balance problems.

And from that page:

Undeath: Upon reaching 4th level, the lich becomes fully undead. Her type changes to undead, and she gains all the normal benefits and drawbacks that go with that type. She no longer has a Constitution score, so she loses any Constitution bonus or penalty to hit points, saving throws, and skills. She also becomes immune to many attacks (including critical hits and sneak attacks, rendering her fortification ability redundant), but she is subject to turn and rebuke attempts and is immediately destroyed if brought to 0 or fewer hit points (though her phylactery prevents "permanent" destruction). All of her Hit Dice (current and future) increase to d12s. (Rather than rerolling all her Hit Dice, just add 4 hit points for every d4 she previously had, 3 hp for every d6, 2 hp for every d8, and 1 hp for every d10.) In addition, her alignment immediately changes to evil if it was not already.

Emphasis mine.

giblina
2007-07-19, 09:31 AM
Thank you, Mudbunny! :smallsmile:

Dausuul
2007-07-19, 09:33 AM
I think it's not so much that liches don't adventure, it's just that their priorities change in a manner that's not always conducive to being a member of a broad party.

Treasure isn't the only motivator for a party going on an adventure. Sometimes there's a threat to a town or just the occasional good deed, and the liche isn't always going to be able to justify leaving to assist with such causes (as opposed to staying home and researching new dark spells or divining the locations of ancient artifacts).

If the party wants to essentially work for the lich, and only do the stuff the lich wants to do, then you're fine, but it won't always turn out that way.

Well, certainly the lich's motivations will be different; basically, the DM would have to offer valuable plunder or secret knowledge as a carrot instead of saving fluffy bunnies. But the same is true of any evil adventurer.

Besides, evil is far from monolithic. If the armies of hell are plotting to open a gate to the material plane and invade, that's a threat to the lich just as much as it is to his living companions.

Overlard
2007-07-19, 09:38 AM
I think it's not so much that liches don't adventure, it's just that their priorities change in a manner that's not always conducive to being a member of a broad party.

Treasure isn't the only motivator for a party going on an adventure. Sometimes there's a threat to a town or just the occasional good deed, and the liche isn't always going to be able to justify leaving to assist with such causes (as opposed to staying home and researching new dark spells or divining the locations of ancient artifacts).

If the party wants to essentially work for the lich, and only do the stuff the lich wants to do, then you're fine, but it won't always turn out that way.
No more so than any other wizard. As soon as you become a lich, you don't suddenly become interested in research dark spells and artifacts any more than the wizard refuses to leave his tower as he's doing the same (without the dark angle).

lord_khaine
2007-07-19, 09:49 AM
changing to a lich doesnt automaticaly change the wizards priorities, and even if the change does turn him evil it does not mean he cant turn back again.

besides that its actualy mentioned in Liber Mortis, that it is possibel for a lich to be of good alligment.

giblina
2007-07-19, 09:51 AM
No more so than any other wizard. As soon as you become a lich, you don't suddenly become interested in research dark spells and artifacts any more than the wizard refuses to leave his tower as he's doing the same (without the dark angle).

It's the other way around.

Only a wizard who was so obsessed with immortaility and arcane power that they'd commit an act of unspeakable evil and sell away their own soul in the process would walk the dark path to lichdom.

There are a lot of other wizards who have a lot of other more normal motivations. I run a dwarven transmuter who's a miner. All his magical abilities are just to help him dig better in strange circumstances. His spellbooks are all beat-up and dirty from getting drug underground, etc. He's a nice guy and would be glad to help someone in need even if there was nothing in it for him. He'd also never become a lich.


Well, certainly the lich's motivations will be different; basically, the DM would have to offer valuable plunder or secret knowledge as a carrot instead of saving fluffy bunnies. But the same is true of any evil adventurer.

The DM doesn't have to do anything. And that's what I was getting at by saying how you don't have to use the savage species progression in order to keep a lich party member balanced. You can alternatively just let them move into the template as detailed, but keep offering the same kind of adventures you always do with the understanding that sometimes the lich is going to have no good reason to join (or worse, may become an antagonist, as in a case where a good wizard's guild requests the party to retrieve a stolen magical artifact for them).


Besides, evil is far from monolithic. If the armies of hell are plotting to open a gate to the material plane and invade, that's a threat to the lich just as much as it is to his living companions.

Self-preservation is an unaligned motivation. Just because a lich defends himself when another evil-aligned character attacks him doesn't turn him good. Even if this happens 1000 times over it doesn't turn him good. If this were the case, all the demons and devils involved in the bloodwars in the outerplanes would now be paladins because of the sheer number of evil creatures they've killed.

lukelightning
2007-07-19, 09:54 AM
Personally I'd rather have my 4 caster levels than the lich template. I'd much rather be a 15th level wizard than an 11th level wizard lich.

Tormsskull
2007-07-19, 09:54 AM
No more so than any other wizard. As soon as you become a lich, you don't suddenly become interested in research dark spells and artifacts any more than the wizard refuses to leave his tower as he's doing the same (without the dark angle).

This is a very common difference of opinion that occurs. Some people read only mechanics, other people read mechanics + fluff. If you read the fluff of the Lich, it gives a pretty clear impression that a Lich is supposed to be evil. However, since it isn't spelled out without a shadow of a doubt, some people will think it means there is a lot of leeway in it. Also, people tend to define "evil" different than others too.

giblina
2007-07-19, 09:56 AM
changing to a lich doesnt automaticaly change the wizards priorities

As mentioned, there's a certain set of priorities that need to be in place before you even become a lich.

Good-hearted souls don't become liches to do good. You know what "unspeakable evil" means, right? It means acts so completely profane, vile, and abhorrent that WoTC can't publish them and maintain the stance that D&D is a family game.

Picture all the most horrific stories you've heard in the news involving children, pregnant women, etc, and then multiply that by a factor of 10. That's what wizards are doing when they become liches.

No one walks that path and says "Okay, this is unspeakably evil, but I'll just do a few good deeds later and make up for it and it'll balance out okay."


and even if the change does turn him evil it does not mean he cant turn back again.

And now we're back at what's necessary for redemption. And my ruling would be that when you become a liche, you've destroyed your last semblance of humanity as your soul has literally been torn from your body and you lack any capacity for redemption whatsoever. You have no desire for it, and no one can grant it to you.

You are forever irrevocably, irredeemably, EVIL. EEEEEVIL. Capital "E" and everything.

Yeril
2007-07-19, 10:04 AM
An evil act doesn't make your alignement evil

So, even if the act of becoming a lich is utterly evil, it doesn't make your alignement evil. However, you still radiate evil, since your very existence is agains the rules of universe.

But I don't see why there would not be "neutral liches" who act for the common good. They would be mostly soloers, however. Since nobody would actually believe that you are on the side of good...

I guess leaving my phylacterie in the hands of the cult of Shehahine Moonbow (I can't spell her name, grrrr) would be proof ennough...

I remember reading somewhere where its possible to have a Good lich, but its very difficult, if you wish to retain your alighnment when becoming a lich, you have to make a will save like DC 30, followed by a Fortitude save DC 20 to stop your self imploading on sheer puzzled energy, then every day you have to make a will save or return evil.

but if you destroy your own plytchthingamy before you turn evil, you make another fortitude save dc 20 to not be destroyed and you become a being of undead goodness, your negative energy touch becomes a Touch of restoration, healing ability damage and health. Your bones bleach white in a holy like fashion, your fear aura becomes a aura of aid for your allies.

although you can be turned and destroyed by evil clerics and Rebuked and commanded by good clerics.

In the immortal words of redcloak, "Turn undead! sort of.."

I like the idea of neutral Lich's I once played a campiagn with a Lich who had gotten old and bored, so he wanted to die, claiming "the never ending quest for ultimate power isn't all its cracked up to be." and there was a short quest involving the PC's heading out to where he hid his plywatchamacallit for him.

good times, goood times.

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 10:20 AM
An evil act doesn't make your alignment evila single unspeakably evil act can indeed be enough to move your alignment from solidly good to solidly evil. We're not talking about a garden variety murder, or even your run of the mill flesh eating serial killer. Even world leaders who killed millions of people are sitting over there saying "oooh... that's taking things way too far don't you think?"

Koji
2007-07-19, 10:20 AM
There are good liches in Faerun. They probably started out evil, and just got tired of it. I think there are a few who became liches to stop something bad from happening and are stuck that way now.

The evilest part about becoming a lich is probably that you're taking your soul away from the gods and keeping it all to yourself. Also you have to eat a puppy.

Inyssius Tor
2007-07-19, 10:30 AM
As far as I know, they didn't actually take the Core path to lichdom. They aren't exactly liches, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm) even if they are undead spellcasters who keep their souls in phylacteries.

giblina
2007-07-19, 10:32 AM
There are good liches in Faerun.

Forgotten Realms is the campaign setting for people who hate boundaries :)

It's the home of Spellfire and good dark elves and every other mess of a concept out there.

I'm pretty sure the campaign designers sit around, furrow their eyebrows, and write down a list of every tried and true D&D concept so they can pervert it.

I'm not trying to knock the campaign setting, but rather say please don't hold up anything that comes out of Forgotten Realms as an argument of what the rules are supposed to allow :smalltongue:

If you were ever in your adventures to meet a lawful good half-fiend liche paladin who absorbs magic and poops flowers, Faerun is the place you'd meet them.

Tyger
2007-07-19, 11:03 AM
Forgotten Realms is the campaign setting for people who hate boundaries :)

It's the home of Spellfire and good dark elves and every other mess of a concept out there.

I'm pretty sure the campaign designers sit around, furrow their eyebrows, and write down a list of every tried and true D&D concept so they can pervert it.

I'm not trying to knock the campaign setting, but rather say please don't hold up anything that comes out of Forgotten Realms as an argument of what the rules are supposed to allow :smalltongue:

If you were ever in your adventures to meet a lawful good half-fiend liche paladin who absorbs magic and poops flowers, Faerun is the place you'd meet them.

Conversely, try to remember this advice yourself. The opinions you've presented are well thought out, have excellent game issues taken into consideration, and are almost unqualifiedly your opinion and are in no way represented by game rules. Interpretation. Its all interpretation.

There is a rule that says all liches are evil when they become liches. There are precedents for good or neutral liches and other undead in the game. That's RAW, despite being contradictory, its still RAW. There is nothing in RAW that precludes a player from playing a good aligned lich. Nothing. Everything else is pure interpretation.

Dausuul
2007-07-19, 11:06 AM
Conversely, try to remember this advice yourself. The opinions you've presented are well thought out, have excellent game issues taken into consideration, and are almost unqualifiedly your opinion and are in no way represented by game rules. Interpretation. Its all interpretation.

There is a rule that says all liches are evil when they become liches. There are precedents for good or neutral liches and other undead in the game. That's RAW, despite being contradictory, its still RAW. There is nothing in RAW that precludes a player from playing a good aligned lich. Nothing. Everything else is pure interpretation.

Technically it's not contradictory. When you become a lich, you turn evil, but by the rules nothing stops you from becoming neutral or even good later on.

That said, I would not allow good-aligned liches in any game I ran, and you'd have to have a really good explanation even to manage neutral.

Nahal
2007-07-19, 11:07 AM
I'm firmly in the "not my precious caster levels!" camp when it comes to lichdom. After all, there are other ways to achieve immortality. One could, for instance, research a spell to switch bodies with another person, with an Instantaneous duration so the change is immediate and irrevocable. Such an act would almost certainly still be Evil, but less so than what's involved in becoming a lich. Plus, if Oledor the Wise and Powerful but Old and Infirm Human takes over the body of Cutthroat Callandil the Elven Master of Kill Rape and Bury (in no particular order) we have quite possibly a net benefit to society.

Now we just have to hope that the magics that suffuse Oledor don't drive him mad, or there aren't some unforeseen problems with taking over the body of a murderer. Or, you know, the gods don't get angry and decide to smite ole' Oldedor for his arrogance.

But yeah, to get back on track: Lichdom = not worth the hassle in my books, but if he's going to turn himself into a soulless abomination against nature there should be some mental problems associated with, you know, turning yourself into a soulless abomination. Unless we're in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron where this sort of thing is acceptable under the right circumstances.

Core though? Make it very clear that the process of separating his soul from his body will render him callous and largely indifferent to the plights of others if he's not already there. And that he will be watched by mildly unamused deities, so that if he starts being really evil they'll send in the clowns. Er, clerics.

Person_Man
2007-07-19, 11:10 AM
Book of Exhalted Deeds has rules for Deathless, which are "good undead."

Also, has anyone else noticed that Neutral players tend to get screwed in most D&D crunch? Why is there no Paladin of Balance? It'd sound like a good Jedi-like idea to me.

Dausuul
2007-07-19, 11:12 AM
I'm firmly in the "not my precious caster levels!" camp when it comes to lichdom.

I used to be in that camp, but you know, arcane casters are super-powerful already. I'm pretty sure I could make a caster who'd still be highly competitive with non-casters even after that +4 LA. Which is kind of sad, really.

The main problem is the four levels during which you don't get any new abilities (except for some random bits of lichdom). Might get rather dull. I'd probably ask the DM if there was a way I could spread out my caster advancement and combine it with the lichification process, so I'd still get something every level.

Nahal
2007-07-19, 11:17 AM
I used to be in that camp, but you know, casters are super-powerful already. I'm pretty sure I could make a caster who'd still be highly competitive with non-casters even after that +4 LA. Which is kind of sad, really.

Yeah, but I play caster because I WANT to be powerful. Then again my last DM did a pretty good job of nerfing arcane casters via campaign setting wackiness. I wound up mostly just solving puzzles.

giblina
2007-07-19, 11:17 AM
Its all interpretation.

RAW necessitates an interpretation because they forgot to include a qualifier in front of "evil" stating whether liches are "always evil" or "usually evil". It just says "evil".

So you can't discuss lich alignment without including an interpretation because the RAW is deficient in that regard.


Book of Exhalted Deeds has rules for Deathless, which are "good undead."

I wasn't arguing there aren't good undead. Ghost template straight out of the SRD is one, off the top of my head, which allows undead of any alignment.

I recall seeing some others in the past (phantoms and revenants) which also allowed any alignment.

I was only talking about lich specifically (as per the SRD lich description), and a strong belief that liches can only be evil.

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 11:28 AM
Book of Exhalted Deeds has rules for Deathless, which are "good undead."

Also, has anyone else noticed that Neutral players tend to get screwed in most D&D crunch? Why is there no Paladin of Balance? It'd sound like a good Jedi-like idea to me.that'd be a druid.... paladins are on the extreme corners, druids are the balance alignments.

it's kind of like wanting to play a good blackguard.

There are RPGs that take a different track on order/balance/chaos... and while I'm sure that someone could write up a paladin of balance according to those rules, it just doesn't seem like it would jibe with the D&D alignment system as is.

With liches it's the same thing... you can't have good liches, but you can have good lich-like things.

SolkaTruesilver
2007-07-19, 11:33 AM
And drow can only be evil?

The typical Lich, the "classic", the archetype, is the dangerous Lich overlord, that is for sure.

I do not say that most liches should not be evil. Actually, about 99.99% of them are. there is always the exception, and each and everyone of them needs to have a goddamned good reason.

My character concept of Raukaith has a good reason, IMHO, for wanting to become a true Lich, even if he is Lawful Good. He wants to keep protecting the world, as his familiy have done for centuries, even if having children is beyond hope for him. If alternative to immortality would be acceptable, he would take them. But I don't think there are a lot except strong storyline DM intervention outside of Lichdom.

giblina
2007-07-19, 11:43 AM
My character concept of Raukaith has a good reason, IMHO, for wanting to become a true Lich, even if he is Lawful Good. He wants to keep protecting the world, as his familiy have done for centuries, even if having children is beyond hope for him. If alternative to immortality would be acceptable, he would take them. But I don't think there are a lot except strong storyline DM intervention outside of Lichdom.

So your lawful-good protector is okay committing an "unspeakable evil" in order to become a lich?

Tearing out your soul isn't "unspeakable". People will talk about that just as easily as we do here.

We're talking about the kind of stuff that would bring folk of good heart to sobs of sorrow when you talk about what you did and he's okay doing it? Bring on the babies and human sacrifice, etc?

Also... "as his familiy have done for centuries"... his family has passed down this responsibility from parent to child for centuries, and your character is okay breaking that chain and legacy, and rather than passing it down to his child as his father or mother did to him, and their parent did to them, back 40 generations or whatever... instead of just doing that he'll instead become an undead fiend of unspeakable horror?

It's just my opinion, of course, but that doesn't sound like a compelling reason... it sounds like an excuse.

SolkaTruesilver
2007-07-19, 11:53 AM
We're talking about the kind of stuff that would bring folk of good heart to sobs of sorrow when you talk about what you did and he's okay doing it? Bring on the babies and human sacrifice, etc?

Actually, we are speaking of the kind of stuff Wizards kept to the imagination of player, since if you actually have to do such kind of evil in-game, you'd have to talk about it. They just want to make sure it is very evil.

And I think that it's the act of becoming a lich that is evil, not that you have to do unspeakable evil to be allowed to become one. The evilness is in the transformation and the defilement of life itself.




Also... "as his familiy have done for centuries"... his family has passed down this responsibility from parent to child for centuries, and your character is okay breaking that chain and legacy, and rather than passing it down to his child as his father or mother did to him, and their parent did to them, back 40 generations or whatever... instead of just doing that he'll instead become an undead fiend of unspeakable horror?

It's just my opinion, of course, but that doesn't sound like a compelling reason... it sounds like an excuse.

1- Elf
2- 2 Generation, my father and I
3- I pretty much believe I am sterile (in-game), and anyway, my character is totally face-scarred in an horrible way. He don't think women would love him, and he doesn't try.
4- Just an undead of unspeakable horror, to stop a greater horror.

lukelightning
2007-07-19, 11:55 AM
It often seems that there are no evil monsters left. "Good" vampires, werewolves, liches, orcs, even demons and devils, are all a dime-a-dozen these days.

I like my evil monsters evil. Want to be a lich? Fine. You're evil. Want to be a good lich? You're just fooling yourself. Want to be a good vampire? Sorry, your thirst for blood overwhelms your moral sense. Want to be a good werewolf? Fine, you're good in your regular form, but when the full moon comes along you turn into a chaotic evil killing machine that would delight in devouring your own family.

Neek
2007-07-19, 11:57 AM
This argument will go on forever, but I figure I can throw in my two cents:

Becoming a Lich is no easy undertaking. It's not taking four-level dip into "Undead Badass." It's ripping your soul out of your body and putting it into a little box. All the while doing heinous things--or perhaps just drawing Japanese hentai (you did say, "unspeakably evil." :smallwink:). The act itself will render you [Evil]. That's enough to tell you something about their nature.

From a fluff point of view, being undead means you've lost your humanity. You no longer taste, you no longer feel, your heart does not beat, your shriveled lungs do not fill with oxygen any more. You are as empty as a slain dragon's footlocker and as cold as its corpse. But, you gave up your humanity. You purposefully did this to yourself: you stopped being human/elf/whatever long before you gave up alive just to transform yourself to a walking, talking, casting, nigh-impossible to kill undead. Once you wake up dead, your life has been permanently warped and altered.

Hell, if I were a DM, the moment you become one, your character is probably no longer playable. But that's just me. Moving onward.

Becoming a "good" lich isn't a process of rolling some Fortitude saves and some Will saves. When you awaken, you are evil in every sense of the word. If there was some scrap of humanity that is still alive, it will either be snuffed by the negative energy that powers you, or it may consume you: That's a point for roleplaying, not for dice.

I'm not saying, "You can't do it! Liches are evil! The template says so right where I bolded the text!" But what I am saying is: "If you want to play a good Lich, you're going to have to have a show a great struggle within yourself that'll span for millenia."

Leon
2007-07-19, 12:21 PM
Also, has anyone else noticed that Neutral players tend to get screwed in most D&D crunch? Why is there no Paladin of Balance? It'd sound like a good Jedi-like idea to me.

If i remember right there is a TN Based Pally in a Dragon (cant remember the issue tho) and it had the option of being able to smite any alignment it wanted

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 12:22 PM
And drow can only be evil?Drow don't choose to be drow... there's no unspeakably evil ritual to become a Drow. The situations aren't parallel in the slightest.

All liches are evil, just like all blackguards are evil. They're both things that you choose to become.

As for your character example ... Lichdom isn't the only avenue for immortality, so choosing it because it's easier is not appropriate for a lawful good character. Even the motivations you list aren't particularly lawful or good. Your character concept does not have a good reason. The lawful good path is to search for one that does not involve unspeakably evil rituals.

lukelightning
2007-07-19, 12:31 PM
Drow don't choose to be drow... there's no unspeakably evil ritual to become a Drow. The situations aren't parallel in the slightest.

Remember that drow are an accursed race. Their entire existance stems from their fall to darkness. I'd say they have an inherent thirst for evil, and the fact that they are basically a culture of sociopathic demon-worshipping murderers doesn't help matters.

giblina
2007-07-19, 12:38 PM
Drow are humanoids, lack the "evil" subtype, and have a "usually" in front of their evil alignment.

As such, I don't have any logistical issue at all with players making good aligned drow (though I think it's become a very tired cliche). Adventurers are a wierd lot and the profession draws all sorts.

Liches, however, are a different beast altogether ;)

Tyger
2007-07-19, 12:39 PM
Drow don't choose to be drow... there's no unspeakably evil ritual to become a Drow. The situations aren't parallel in the slightest.

All liches are evil, just like all blackguards are evil. They're both things that you choose to become.

As for your character example ... Lichdom isn't the only avenue for immortality, so choosing it because it's easier is not appropriate for a lawful good character. Even the motivations you list aren't particularly lawful or good. Your character concept does not have a good reason. The lawful good path is to search for one that does not involve unspeakably evil rituals.

True, its a choice. But its not impossible to imagine that choice being made (and the "unspeakably evil" acts being commited) for a morally good reason. Heck, its not even difficult to imagine. Knowing that if you die (really, really die) then your world dies with you. Your mind holds the arcane key to the trap which imprisons the world destroying god of even more unspeakably evil.

Its easy to come up with stories that would account for good aligned reasons for taking on lichdom.

And... helm of opposite alignment anyone? :smallsmile: Instant good lich. You could even set up your conversion to include one. And of course, you'd feel such guilt afterwards that your entire existence from that point forward would be a reflection of that guilt and your need to atone.


Adventurers are a wierd lot and the profession draws all sorts.

Even liches. :)

mostlyharmful
2007-07-19, 12:39 PM
something to consider about the whole, unspeakable act thing. It takes gold, time and xp to create a phylactery. There is no "contact with an evil outsider" or any other hint about what is so terrible. It gets to the point where sitting alone in a roolm and not interacting with anyone outside you can somehow "ferform an unspeakable act", it seems to me that the act in question is the inherent change of taking out your lifesource and putting it in anouther container. this seems to pee off the gods who deceide what is and isn't ok, in other words someone eldse doesn't like what you are doing with your own stuff, what i mean is its [B]your[B] life not theirs,. Now, what possible motivation could the gods have for objecting to what you do to your own stuff? well, it means they don't get it, devine powers usually derive power from their followers, what bit of their followers? their soul of course.

this of course is only my own interpretation, but it makes lots of sense to me. "It's my life and I'll do withit as i wish thank you very much" sort of thing.

giblina
2007-07-19, 12:45 PM
counterpoint: The conjuration spell "trap the soul" also stuffs a person's soul in a gem indefinately, denying it to the gods, but it's not considered an evil spell to use.

Besides, if the gods wanted one person's soul so badly I'm pretty sure they could send someone to fetch it ;)

The_Werebear
2007-07-19, 12:49 PM
I am coming to the aid of the Good Aligned Lich people, with a specific counter to the argument about magical compulsion to be evil.

Note the Atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) Spell. It "removes the burden of Misdeeds" from the target. It doesn't specify that it can't remove the taint of "unspeakable evil." Also, it is capable of reversing magical alignment change. Finally, it can perform the Tempt or Redeem" function, allowing you to convert anyone to your alignment.

So, a Wizard of a good deity, feeling he needs to protect a certain place, person, or thing beyond death decides Lichdom is the only way to do it. He gathers up several kittens, kills them, and eats their souls with fava beans and a nice cianti. Following that, he becomes undead. However, he notices that after his transformation, he is feeling very guilty over the kittens/an uncontrollable desire to laugh maniacally and summon a demon. He calls his cleric friends, who comes by, spends the 500xp and GP, and secures their Deity's forgiveness for his acts.

Done.

Leon
2007-07-19, 12:51 PM
She's a Lich, may we burn her

mostlyharmful
2007-07-19, 12:54 PM
:smalltongue: Only if she weighs the same as a duck.

giblina
2007-07-19, 12:57 PM
I am coming to the aid of the Good Aligned Lich people, with a specific counter to the argument about magical compulsion to be evil.

Note the Atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) Spell. It "removes the burden of Misdeeds" from the target. It doesn't specify that it can't remove the taint of "unspeakable evil." Also, it is capable of reversing magical alignment change. Finally, it can perform the Tempt or Redeem" function, allowing you to convert anyone to your alignment.

So, a Wizard of a good deity, feeling he needs to protect a certain place, person, or thing beyond death decides Lichdom is the only way to do it. He gathers up several kittens, kills them, and eats their souls with fava beans and a nice cianti. Following that, he becomes undead. However, he notices that after his transformation, he is feeling very guilty over the kittens/an uncontrollable desire to laugh maniacally and summon a demon. He calls his cleric friends, who comes by, spends the 500xp and GP, and secures their Deity's forgiveness for his acts.

Done.

Nice try...


Atonement

Abjuration
Level: Clr 5, Drd 5
Components: V, S, M, F, DF, XP
Casting Time: 1 hour
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

There is no redemption for the soul-less :smalltongue:

The_Werebear
2007-07-19, 01:02 PM
Well dang.

Tyger
2007-07-19, 01:04 PM
Even without Atonement, there is the Helm of Opposite Alignment that I noted above. Instant Good.

giblina
2007-07-19, 01:12 PM
Re: Helm of opposite alignment... possibly. It depends a lot on how that helmet functions and the description has always been sorely lacking.

Liches are completley immune to mind-affecting spells, and I can think of little that sounds more "mind affecting" than a spell effect that reverses your alignment.

My house rule with that helmet is that it would not function on any creature that is immune to mind affecting spells (so no neutral-good liches, lawful-evil gelatinous cubes, or chaotic-good animated brooms).

Per RAW though... not really clear. As mentioned, the helmet description lacks a detail about what means it uses to accomplish the function.

- Syll

lukelightning
2007-07-19, 01:14 PM
Even without Atonement, there is the Helm of Opposite Alignment that I noted above. Instant Good.

This cheese won't fly with me. This is a cursed item, not some magical bandaid. Do you normally go around saying "wow, look, here is a cursed such and such...why don't I activate it on myself? Would you want to put on an item that rewrites your personality?

Being a mean DM I'd say "fine, you become good, and are overwhelmed with remorse at the thing of evil that you have become and see that the only way to amend this evil is to cease to exist..." RIP.

SolkaTruesilver
2007-07-19, 01:17 PM
What about mindrape, in the BoVD?

mudbunny
2007-07-19, 01:18 PM
Re: Helm of opposite alignment... possibly. It depends a lot on how that helmet functions and the description has always been sorely lacking.

Liches are completley immune to mind-affecting spells, and I can think of little that sounds more "mind affecting" than a spell effect that reverses your alignment.

Helm of Opposite alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#helmofOppositeAlignment)

his metal hat looks like a typical helmet. When placed upon the head, however, its curse immediately takes effect (Will DC 15 negates). On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG). Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook. A character who succeeds on his save can continue to wear the helmet without suffering the effect of the curse, but if he takes it off and later puts it on again, another save is required. The curse only works once; that is, a character whose alignment has been changed cannot change it again by donning the helmet a second time.

Note the bolded text. You can make a will save to resist the effect. Seeing as how Liches are immune to anything that requires a will save, it is a safe bet that a helm of opposite alignment wouldn't work.

However, like I said before, there is no reason why a Lich couldn't change alignment *after* being transformed into a lich, but it would have to be one heck of a story.

lord_khaine
2007-07-19, 01:29 PM
for that matter, for those who did not cach it first time, Liber mortis, the book of undeads, goes directly out and says that it is possibel for a lich to be good.

and besides, houserule whatever you want, but there is nothing in the rules that says liches cant change alligment, or forces them to act in any way.

SolkaTruesilver
2007-07-19, 01:39 PM
I has been said 3 times already (not counting yours), but these people argue about how it is even possible. I tried giving them legitimate reason for a LG to become a lich, but they rebuff everytime.

detrevnisisiht
2007-07-19, 01:39 PM
why not just HR a good lich-ish thing where you do an unspeakably good act then modify abilities accordingly

Chronos
2007-07-19, 01:39 PM
It's just barely conceivably possible that a Lich, after becoming undead, might repent of its evil and become good. Incredibly unlikely, but possible. But what happens then? A lich's continued existence is maintained by evil energies. For a lich to become good, it would have to reject those evil energies. Which would mean allowing itself to die. In order to atone, you have to make some effort to correct your previous wrongs, and for a lich, it's its very existance which is the wrong. Which means that even if you do finagle the rules by programming a construct to shove a helm of opposite alignment on your skull as soon as the ritual is complete, or whatever, it's just a fancy way to commit suicide.

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 01:43 PM
/shrug ... other books say that when you become a lich you turn evil; it's open to interpretation from campaign to campaign whether a lich can be redeemed or not regardless of what Liber Mortis says.

Just because it happens to be published in a book by WOTC doesn't make it any more valid than the different interpretations that groups have; there's nothing holy about RAW. I personally don't agree with the concept of good liches any more than I agree with the idea that grey guard are "every bit as lawful and good as a paladin". It's an absurd idea, even if it's published in a book somewhere.

And if what it's talking about is a ritual that allows one to become a lich without becoming evil... then really they just shouldn't have used the same term to mean something that's completely different.


I has been said 3 times already (not counting yours), but these people argue about how it is even possible. I tried giving them legitimate reason for a LG to become a lich, but they rebuff everytime.because your reasoning wasn't lawful, or good.

mudbunny
2007-07-19, 01:47 PM
I has been said 3 times already (not counting yours), but these people argue about how it is even possible. I tried giving them legitimate reason for a LG to become a lich, but they rebuff everytime.

Hold on there skippy. People are saying that when you become a lich, your alignment changes to L/N/C-Evil. A couple people are saying that they would not allow a lich to become good again, but there are others, myself included, that you seem to have ignored who have said that it would be possible, but be *extremely* complicated and difficult.

A lich is powered by negative energy. For your lich to turn away from evil, he would have to find a reason to do so. Once you turn LE, the motivations that your character would have had *no longer exist*.

From the SRD

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

lord_khaine
2007-07-19, 02:00 PM
hold there yourself.
we allready knows that if someone who has written good on their charecter sheet it doesnt mean they are unable to do evil things, nothing prevents them from doing so, its just if they do it good will be replaced with evil.

likewise if the text says Evil, the char isnt handet a weekly quota of evil acts to do, and then forced to fill it. its just that IF he doesnt do it his alligment will get replaced by neutral quite fast.

to put it another way, alligment does not dictate behavior, behavior dictate alligment.

mudbunny
2007-07-19, 02:08 PM
Looks at previous posts I have made where I have explicitly said that after changing to a lich, which results in an evil alignment (no ifs, ands, or buts about it, the character becomes evil), the lich could change alignment.

Look at it this way.

The character is lawful good.
The process to become a lich requires you to do unspeakably evil things


You don't see how the two cannot work together??

A LG character could, in no way, realistically decide to become a lich. The fact that they are considering it means that their goodness is only a small dot in the rear-view mirror of alignment change.

giblina
2007-07-19, 02:11 PM
If you want to play in a world where your lawful-good fighter needs to stop and question every chromatic dragon, vampire, and demon he meets about his philosophy before attacking because those monsters could be good too, that's fine.

It's just not the campaign I want to play in.

I'm much happier in the world where it's clearly defined which monsters are good, which are evil, and which have the moral freedom to choose for themselves (even if their society is such that most are aligned a certain way).

And in such a world, liches, vampires, dread wraiths, ghouls, ghasts, shadows, skeletons, and zombies are always evil without exception. A cleric will never be forced to lay awake at night wondering to themself if the undead fiend they just destroyed earlier in the day might actually have just been trying to perfect a recipe for the ultimate chocolate chip cookie.

lukelightning
2007-07-19, 02:18 PM
Seeing as how Liches are immune to anything that requires a will save

Not true. They are only immune to mind-affecting things. There are plenty of spells and other effects that require will saves that aren't mind-affecting. Plane shift, for example.

mudbunny
2007-07-19, 02:21 PM
Seeing as how Liches are immune to anything that requires a will saveNot true. They are only immune to mind-affecting things. There are plenty of spells and other effects that require will saves that aren't mind-affecting. Plane shift, for example.

Ahh, my bad. But my point still stands. A helm of Opposite alignment is a mind-affecting thing. Therefore, they are immune to it.

Tyger
2007-07-19, 02:24 PM
Ahh, my bad. But my point still stands. A helm of Opposite alignment is a mind-affecting thing. Therefore, they are immune to it.

You are free to interpret it that way. Doesn't say so RAW, but you are certainly free to interpret it that way. Not how I see it, but sure.

Nocte
2007-07-19, 02:37 PM
There is a good lich variant in Libris Mortis.

Krrth
2007-07-19, 02:41 PM
Well, all things being equal, I actually DO have a LG lich. He didn't start out that way. Curse you deck of many things!..... He's currently trying to find a way to transform himself from a lich to a baelnorn....maybe via wish.

giblina
2007-07-19, 02:42 PM
There is a good lich variant in Libris Mortis.

We know!

:smallyuk:

SilverClawShift
2007-07-19, 03:19 PM
I'd just like to say something about the Unspeakable Evil acts the lich has to perform.

WOTC didn't detail what those acts are for a variety of reasons. Probably partially because just listing the stuff would be a crime in many countries, but probably ALSO because they wanted to leave it open to some measure of interpretation.

So what is an unspeakably evil act? It could be something involving puppies and halfling babies and an elf paladins grandmother and a really dull knife, yeah.

Or it could just be that willingly removing your OWN SOUl and putting it in an arcanely prepared prison is evil and offensive enough to everything good and pure and right that it alone is unspeakably evil.

Neek
2007-07-19, 03:28 PM
Ahh, my bad. But my point still stands. A helm of Opposite alignment is a mind-affecting thing. Therefore, they are immune to it.

I'm not sure how you interpret it to be vague. Check the descriptor: Strong transmutation; CL 12th; Craft Wondrous Item, creator must be 12th level; Price 4,000 gp;Weight 3 lb (emphasis mine).

Its effects are not mind-effecting. A transmutation effect that transforms the wearer's alignment is not an effect where they are compelled to act outside of their alignment, it alters their alignment on a fundamental level. A lich could conceivably put one on, deciding to fail its Will save, and have its alignment reversed. It's possible crunch-wise.

But this is the same as a LG fighter saying, "Geeze. I want to be evil. Really evil. I want to eat puppies and make babies cry sort of evil," and then putting the helm on: if the LG fighter already made the decision to become evil, then he doesn't need a helmet. Using it to justify the change is simply poor metagaming; it is forcing mechanics to work in a way that justifies a player's attitude, not the character's.

Also, Negative energy is amoral. Simply being powered by negative energy does not make you evil; this is why good-aligned undead can exist. You may say, "Why can Evil clerics translate prepared spells to Inflict Wounds?"--the best you can do with negative energy is harm the living or power undead; neither of which are at all Good things.

Lastly, I'm in the camp that becoming a lich is not something a Good person does. If they do, under any circumstance, the end result is inevitably something Evil. Going back to Good is a long, internal battle that will probably out-live even your longest lived companions.

Ruerl
2007-07-19, 03:36 PM
On the "unspeakable evil act" I seriously just think its a way to make it sound "cool" nothing more, there is nothing "unspeakable" about it since we can quite well... speak about it ;)

That aside, is'nt this a debate going past each other? It seems to me like a few here argue the term subjective evil while others argue the term objective evil, now D&D is normally objective evil and from that standpoint liches are evil, its simply a part of what they are, being undead and being a lich makes you evil, since even existing in this form is evil, and thats pretty much the end of that discussion since evil is well, objective, there is the ultimate truth and no borderzone like there is in the real world, see p. 9 of the book of exalted deeds for an example, since its not in the SRD I can't quote it word for word, but I can however re-word it and write the meaning of it here ;)

Does the end justify the means? For example if you need to torture a person to save thousands of people and you know its the only way to save them, what then? Torture is an undeniable evil act in the D&D system, and even preventing a large scale disaster through using an evil act, still makes you do an evil thing.
So the fundemental answer on does the end justify the means in D&D is "no" the end never justifies the means in D&D, that is why a Lich is evil, it can do all the good it will, but whatever it does, its still evil due to its very existence at the end of the day, if it became a lich to save the world it still did an evil thing.

Thats the standard D&D answer, and in my eyes its silly (I prefer the subjective evil approach), why do I think that? Because simply asking the higher powers "is it evil?" or casting "holy smite" to see who gets hurt is too easy and prevents too much roleplay, there is no doubt no questioning, its simply game mechanics and then down to bashing a few people, I find that approach lazy and would personally want more of a challenge in a game than that, but then, different people, different taste.

At the end of the day though, as much as I dislike it, the core D&D alignment system makes a lich evil at creation.

Regards

Lars

EDIT:
page 8 of the book of vile darkness also lists undead as inherently evil and creating them as inherently evil, again, standard D&D, some (like me) would disagree and burn the book of vile darkness & the book of exalted deeds ceremonially over a fire (if it was'nt a waste of money), but thats a personal choice that we are free to make.

giblina
2007-07-19, 04:10 PM
I'm not sure how you interpret it to be vague. Check the descriptor: Strong transmutation; CL 12th; Craft Wondrous Item, creator must be 12th level; Price 4,000 gp;Weight 3 lb (emphasis mine).

Below is from SRD:



Magic Items and Detect Magic

When detect magic identifies a magic item’s school of magic, this information refers to the school of the spell placed within the potion, scroll, or wand, or the prerequisite given for the item. The description of each item provides its aura strength and the school it belongs to.

If more than one spell is given as a prerequisite, use the highest-level spell. If no spells are included in the prerequisites, use the following default guidelines.

Item Nature School
Armor and protection items Abjuration
Weapons or offensive items Evocation
Bonus to ability score, on skill check, etc. Transmutation

The helm radiates transmutation because it's an "etc" and no specific spell is used in it's creation. It doesn't mean that the effect the magic item uses is necessarily of that type.


Now, see below the descriptions for compulsions, to which liches are definately immune.


Compulsion

A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the effects on the subject, some compulsion spells allow you to determine the subject’s actions when you cast the spell, and others give you ongoing control over the subject.


Compared with Transmutation


Transmutation
Transmutation spells change the properties of some creature, thing, or condition.

You could argue that changing a creature's alignment is changing a property, in the same way that you could argue that a death spell is a transmutation because it transmutes them from alive to dead, or that a fireball is a transmutation because it changes them from normal to "extra crispy" or that a fear spell is a transmutation because it changes them from brave to afraid, etc etc.

You could (and I would) also argue that changing a character's moral outlook is much closer to the effects that a compulsion covers than the effects that transmutation covers.

The transmutation aura, in this case, is just the default because there's no spell used to create the thing.

lord_khaine
2007-07-19, 04:36 PM
whereever the healm works or not is irrelevant, the only thing thats required for changing aligment is the desire to change.

and yes, by raw becoming a lich changes your aligment to evil, but also by raw, there is nothing to stop you from changing again, the option for the good lich is actualy supportet by raw, so they have to come from somewhere.

on a side note, 1 reason i could imagine for a good lich is when becomming 1 was the lesser of 2 evils.

Duke Malagigi
2007-07-19, 04:55 PM
Some one on the Wizards forums quoted on exceprt (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13101182&postcount=7) from the 2nd Edition Lords of Darkness on the process of becoming a standard Evilly-alinged lich. Of course this won’t help you at all.

Neek
2007-07-19, 05:16 PM
The helm radiates transmutation because it's an "etc" and no specific spell is used in it's creation. It doesn't mean that the effect the magic item uses is necessarily of that type.

Just because it lacks a spell listed means it's transmutation? Even if its effects are otherwise? After all, if you have Transmutation as one of your barred school, then any wondrous item that lacks an listed spell is automatically barred as well. I don't think they fought that through ;). What is listed, however, are guidelines, not strict rules. It is perfectly possible to create an item that lacks a listed spell that is of the school Enchantment if its effects are obviously mind-affecting.

Either the authors of the SRD were strict on their guidelines or they intended the cursed item to be a transmutation effect. You may rule differently, but that is how I interpret the rules and may be a little more conservative than how you would. Since it does not explicitly state that it's a mind-effecting spell, and that it is radiates with transmutation, I would rule that a lich could be effected by it.


You could argue that changing a creature's alignment is changing a property, in the same way that you could argue that a death spell is a transmutation because it transmutes them from alive to dead, or that a fireball is a transmutation because it changes them from normal to "extra crispy" or that a fear spell is a transmutation because it changes them from brave to afraid, etc etc.

Yes. All spells are really transmutation effects. Or all spells are really Illusion spells and just the core Illusion spells are the weakest. Or all spells are really conjuring: you're summoning a new alignment in their body, you're summoning their soul back to their body, you're summoning fear into their hearts, &c. It can be argued that, but it isn't.


You could (and I would) also argue that changing a character's moral outlook is much closer to the effects that a compulsion covers than the effects that transmutation covers.

I agree that it should be in an Enchantment (Mind-affecting), because that's what the effect is 100%. But as RAW, it's just how I read it.

Anyway, you neglected the more important part of my argument (which makes the other half of my argument irrelevant): The item is cursed. Its desired effects are on those unwitting to it. If you know what it does and you put it on anyway, you've already changed your alignment. You've already decided, "I am going to be a good, law-abiding citizen" or "I am going to be a deceitfully evil person with no respect to boundaries, whether personal or drawn on a map." There should be no helmet necessary to make a purposeful, conscious choice.

Not even for liches.

I know lord_khaine agrees with me on this.

Ruerl
2007-07-19, 05:19 PM
on a side note, 1 reason i could imagine for a good lich is when becomming 1 was the lesser of 2 evils.

Not according to the book of vile darkness & the book of exalted deeds, an evil deed is an evil deed and there is no such thing as the lesser of two evils or "the end justifies the means.

SolkaTruesilver
2007-07-19, 05:24 PM
correction. There is such things at a lesser evil, but the threat of the uber-evil does not mean that it is ok to commit the lesser evil.

You can't justify an evil act to prevent a bigger evil. At least, not to the Forces of Good. What we, little mortal, thinks, is another matter.

giblina
2007-07-19, 05:30 PM
on a side note, 1 reason i could imagine for a good lich is when becomming 1 was the lesser of 2 evils.

The lesser of two evils is still, by definition, evil.

But we're going round and round in circles now and I'm going to step out of this discussion.

I think it's pretty clearly the intent that liches are irrevocably and horrifically evil. Always. They don't try to steal christmas, encounter little girls down in whoville, and suddenly grow a new soul.

I realize an expansion book (Libris Mortis) takes a different approach. I think that book is stupid (as is my right). It's base pandering to the anti-hero worship which permeates gaming these days. When the redeemed "usually evil" become cliche, they had to move on to the redeemed "always evil".

But anyways, it's in a published book, so do whatever you want (just don't ever try it in my campaign or you'd be smitten). We'll have to agree to fundamentally disagree on the validity of such a concept.

- Gnarsh

Tyger
2007-07-19, 06:04 PM
First... Helm of Opposite Alignment. While it is arguable that its a mind effecting spell and thus of no use on a lich, if you don't go that route and think that it can work, there is nothing RAW or RP from precluding you from using it in this manner. Not too likely you'll voluntarily put it on, but you can certainly structure your lichy conversion to include you putting on the helm (or having it put on you) involuntarily. Instruct your 5 Iron Golems to hold you in place while your cleric friend stands nearby and repeatedly puts the helm on you until your alignment registers as good. Set up a mechanism for your conversion that will lower the helm onto yourself, after you have a cleric or wizard companion force your save to suck (there's gotta be a way!)... etc etc etc.

Sure the save DC is incredibly low (at high levels, every wizard in the world is going to save on all but a 1) but if you have it shoved on to your head enough, you will fail eventually.

Good Liches in General: Its RAW that it can happen. Arguments to the contrary are not RAW. Houserule it how you want. Interpret it how you want. But by RAW, you can indeed be and play a good lich.

Ruerl
2007-07-19, 06:19 PM
I realize an expansion book (Libris Mortis) takes a different approach. I think that book is stupid (as is my right). It's base pandering to the anti-hero worship which permeates gaming these days. When the redeemed "usually evil" become cliche, they had to move on to the redeemed "always evil".

Read the book first please, I for one does'nt find that it tries to make undead good, in fact it underlines that the vast majority of all undead are in fact utterly evil, so you'll love it for sticking with the cliché D&D alignment system.

Still your choice, like its mine to utterly despise a book such as the book of vile darkness and the book of exalted deeds wich furthers blind fanatism and the religious zealotry of certainity while at the same time ridiculing sceptism.

Still, different people, different approach, and we agree on how D&D generally rules it, even if we disagree in wether its a good thing or not.

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 06:39 PM
whereever the healm works or not is irrelevant, the only thing thats required for changing aligment is the desire to change.Nope.

If you do a bunch of evil deeds and the DM rules that you are now evil, you can't just say "no I'm not, I'm good" and immediately change it back.

If a living person puts on a helm of opposite alignment and it changes their alignment to evil, they can't just say "Well, I change it back to good"

Nor can a lich changes their alignment on demand.

Depending on the campaign, a lich may or may not be able to work to atone for their evil and eventually become neutral and then good. They may simple be stuck with evil.


on a side note, 1 reason i could imagine for a good lich is when becomming 1 was the lesser of 2 evils.Sorry, the lesser of two evils is still Evil. Not good, or even Neutral. Still totally and completely evil.

Besides, other an absurdly contrived situation, becoming a lich is never going to be the lesser of two evils.

palindrome
2007-07-19, 06:52 PM
In response to Tyger...
If you instruct your five iron golems to hold you while your cleric friend puts on the helm repeatedly, it probably wouldn't be considered involuntarily because the lich himself took strides to assist with the war effort, so to speak.

Also, if a lich truly wanted to have a change of heart, he wouldn't need the helm to do it, simply because the desire to change is essentially the preliminary step to legitimately changing one's alignment. Cap off a series of random good deeds supervised by an obscenely powerful cleric with an atonement spell and I'm sure your alignment could change that way, perhaps a more feasible route than the helm. If not, it would at least be a more interesting roleplaying experience.

Also, for those situations where becoming a lich might in fact be the lesser of two evils, you might be wise to consider the likely possibility that your comrades or patron organization decide you are too much of a threat after you fight off the greater evil. After all is said and done and there just the one evil left, the poor sap that became the lich is going to be the greatest evil around. Enter the extermination squad.
Hope the sacrifice was worth it. You can pat yourself on the back in the Fugue plane knowing you gave up everything for a greater good. Congratulations? I guess?

Tyger
2007-07-19, 06:58 PM
Agree with most of what you say in yoru post, but...


Sorry, the lesser of two evils is still Evil. Not good, or even Neutral. Still totally and completely evil.

Besides, other an absurdly contrived situation, becoming a lich is never going to be the lesser of two evils.

Killing the enemy soldiers in battle is evil. Its the intentional taking of human life. Yet is is "less evil" than the alternative, at least from your nation's point of view. So sometimes the lesser of two evils can still be very evil. Granted, that may not be "unspeakably evil" but its not hard to imagine situations where even the lesser evil is still beyond the scope of most people's thought process. Hell, look at (for a trite and terrible example) the Saw series of movies. Damn... I can't believe I just admitted to watching those. :smallredface:

As for the "absurdly contrived situation"... are we playing the same game? The one where this group of mis-matched companions with little to no reason to actually meet let alone decide to travel together, bumble from one zanny adventure to another, willingly risking their lives over and over again, despite that fact that they found enough gold in their first zanny adventure to live comfortably for years, if not the rest of their lives? Come on.... D&D is one giant absurdly contrived situation after another.:smallsmile:


If you instruct your five iron golems to hold you while your cleric friend puts on the helm repeatedly, it probably wouldn't be considered involuntarily because the lich himself took strides to assist with the war effort, so to speak.

Also, if a lich truly wanted to have a change of heart, he wouldn't need the helm to do it, simply because the desire to change is essentially the preliminary step to legitimately changing one's alignment. Cap off a series of random good deeds supervised by an obscenely powerful cleric with an atonement spell and I'm sure your alignment could change that way, perhaps a more feasible route than the helm. If not, it would at least be a more interesting roleplaying experience.

Yes, I assumed in the force examples that the person knew that they were going to be corrupted by the spell and process... and wanted to change their morality immediately after the conversion, thus a forcing. They might not assume that they will want to change, knowing the effects that the transformation is going to have on them. Thus they contrive to simply be good immediately after their conversion. I wasn't assuming that this was a lich who had decided to become good, but rather a good wizard who knew that his lichdom would make him evil and was taking steps to prevent or circumvent that. SHould have explained that better I suppose.

Caelestion
2007-07-19, 07:01 PM
Just for the record, using only what is already in print, creating a phylactery takes an unspeakably evil act - so evil in fact, they'll cancel my subscription to Phylacteries Monthly if I tell you.

The dreadfully romantic and munchkin-magnetic baelnorn is, yes, a Lawful Good lich-like creature. He also doesn't have a phylactery and is in fact soul-bound to one specific area, such as Myth Drannor. Baelnorns use sendings and their ghostly projections to communicate with people. Baelnorns also do not have their chilling fear aura (and, if you assume they're actually deathless, not undead, they don't have auras of evil either).

Lich = evil. It doesn't have to be baby-eating evil or kitten-bonsai evil and it doesn't have to be get-on-an-MMO-and-kill-a-hundred-people-because-he's-bored evil. A baelnorn however is categorically not evil.

estradling
2007-07-19, 07:04 PM
Given that it is suppose to take an unspeakably evil act(s) to become a Lich I would rule that no matter how good you where before that the premeditated act(s) required would make the character evil... But that is just my take on it...

As for the becoming good again my thoughts would be that to Atone the character has to try to undo the evil that they did as much as possible... Which would include, at a minimum the ending of their lichdom... Of course this is all fluff but I don't think it is unreasonable

Tormsskull
2007-07-19, 07:12 PM
Good Liches in General: Its RAW that it can happen. Arguments to the contrary are not RAW. Houserule it how you want. Interpret it how you want. But by RAW, you can indeed be and play a good lich.

I see you are trying to argue RAW specifically, and as such I'm willing to argue the rules only. As I can see, the rules state:



If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions.


So first, I'm not seeing where it says the Player can choose to change their alignment. The way I am reading this, the DM has to decide to change the player's alignment.

Next:



Alignment: Any evil


Therefore, regardless of which alignment your character starts off as, when he becomes a lich he becomes evil.

Could you explain to me, by RAW, how you choose to change your alignment?

In your example of using your backstory to state that your character utilized a helmet of opposite of alignment, could you show me where the RAW state you can do this?



The rules for creating your character provide a common ground for players, but you can tweak the rukes to make your character unique. Any substantive changes, however, must be approved by the DM.


So, I think your argument basically boils down to "Its possible by RAW because a particular DM may decide to allow me to do this." But doesn't that make it RAI, because the DM is choosing to allow you to do that?

Caelestion
2007-07-19, 07:16 PM
Of course, if we let the horrible, horrible evil that is common sense and *gasp* roleplaying into this, you are a creature that is powered entirely by negative energy, the force of death and destruction itself. In fact, without it, your corpse keels over insensate. On top of this, you radiate evil, you have a chilling aura of evil and you have a nifty eternal-paralysis ability. You even ripped out your soul and performed an act of unspeakable evil (you wore socks with sandals... no!!!!).

Now you want to turn good and repent of your sins. Please justify, even in the merest way possible, without resorting to sophistry or armageddon situations, why your good-aligned mind isn't repulsed by your own very existence?

giblina
2007-07-19, 07:25 PM
Well, as you can see from this design team interview, a lot of thought went into the Libris Mortis good lich concept.

from: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ps/20041001a


Wizards: I read and reread the idea of the lich variant "good lich." So, I guess the interview question here is . . . really? A good lich??

Andy: While most of us would shudder to think about transforming our bodies in such a manner, in a truly fantastic world I don't find it so much of a stretch to imagine the possibility of deciding, "Yes, it's worth giving up my physical health and vitality in order to live forever" without having to also be a megalomaniac or mass murderer.

Bruce: I guess it all depends on how well preserved you can convince yourself that you'll end up being. Wait, I mean your character. Anyway . . . preservation on par with a vampire -- that doesn't seem too bad. But flesh dropping from your bones with each movement . . . well, now it's hard to stay good when you've got that sort of nuisance to deal with.

See... here I was thinking the evil of lichdom was about the extent to which you were willing to toss aside all that was human about you in exchange for limitless arcane power and immortality.

Instead, the alignment of a lich hinges more closely on whether they look similar or dissimilar to a zombie when they're done sacrificing babies on an altar of blood.

*eyeroll*

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 07:27 PM
Killing the enemy soldiers in battle is evil. Nope. Killing isn't an evil act in and of itself; death is a part of life. Some types of killing are inherently evil (murder), and others are neutral (or even arguably an act of good if it's an act of compassion, but that's a different thread).


As for the "absurdly contrived situation"... are we playing the same game? The one where this group of mis-matched companions with little to no reason to actually meet let alone decide to travel together, bumble from one zanny adventure to another, willingly risking their lives over and over again, despite that fact that they found enough gold in their first zanny adventure to live comfortably for years, if not the rest of their lives? Come on.... D&D is one giant absurdly contrived situation after another.:smallsmile:Those are the diet coke of contrived... none of those are "absurdly contrived". Setting up a situation where a person becomes a lich as the lesser of evils is a whole order of magnitude more contrived.... for example: the contrived situation creator discounts all other possible actions other than two and then offers something like "xxx cosmic force decrees that if you don't become a lich it will destroy the prime material and condemn all souls to an eternity of suffering and torture" as the two possible options.

And no, it sounds like we're not we're not playing the same game. My group of companions always has a reason to meet and decide to travel together. If they haven't known each other for a long time already, it takes time for them to establish trust in each other, but as time goes by they become true friends and companions, and are more and more willing to risk their lives for each other. They never come into inordinate amounts of liquid wealth, certainly not big piles of gold, though that never stops them from searching for more.


Yes, I assumed in the force examples that the person knew that they were going to be corrupted by the spell and process... and wanted to change their morality immediately after the conversion, thus a forcing. Sorry that doesn't work... becoming a lich requires that you be a willing participant. If you are actively working to not be evil, you aren't actually willing be the monster that you are about to become (a lich); the ritual to become a lich would fail.

Tyger
2007-07-19, 07:28 PM
I see you are trying to argue RAW specifically, and as such I'm willing to argue the rules only. As I can see, the rules state:

<some stuff that I mostly agree with>

So, I think your argument basically boils down to "Its possible by RAW because a particular DM may decide to allow me to do this." But doesn't that make it RAI, because the DM is choosing to allow you to do that?

Actually, my statement that good liches were possible by RAW was specifically in regards to the "Good Lich" variant which is printed in Libris Mortis on page 156. No interpretation required. Just some reading. Its a rule, written in a D&D book, published by WoTC, using the 3.5 system. Thus, RAW.

And of course, DMs are free to say that they are not allowing such or that they don't use that book, or to BBQ it on an open flame along with BoED and BoVD... but it is RAW.

And no, on the point that you were discussing there, I don't think that a player can say, "I know I was CE yesterday, what with the nailing that puppy to those trees and all, but I have had a change of heart, and would like to be LG today, and instead open a puppy farm." I think we agree 100% there. But a player can choose to begin playing his character in a manner so as to eventually change his alignment. That's why there is a discussion of this exact thing on page 134 of the DMG.

Tyger
2007-07-19, 07:31 PM
Sorry that doesn't work... becoming a lich requires that you be a willing participant. If you are actively working to not be evil, you aren't actually willing be the monster that you are about to become (a lich); the ritual to become a lich would fail.

Any RAW for that? Nope? Didn't think so. I think its a great interpretation. I think it makes sense. I also think that its interpretation. In your game, that's how it works. By RAW though, which is what I am discussing, it does not work that way.

No where does it say you have to like all the things about your transformation. You have to commit the unspeakably evil act, blah blah blah... don't have to like it. Just be willing. I willingly do things that I really don't want to do all the time. I am sure you do too. Its called a job. :smallsmile:

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 07:35 PM
Well, as you can see from this design team interview, a lot of thought went into the Libris Mortis good lich concept.
*eyeroll*I'm not totally sure whether you're being sarcastic or not...

what they describe though in that interview... isn't a lich. Being a lich is quite a bit more than just deciding "Yes, it's worth giving up my physical health and vitality in order to live forever"

just to be absolutely clear... I have no problem with a good aligned positive energy undead creature... but that's not a lich.

Caelestion
2007-07-19, 07:36 PM
You know, Tyger, when you like his interpretation, you agree with his interpretation and then even say that it's probably the correct interpretation, any other shillyshallying and RAW-hugging soundslike arguing just for the sake of arguing.

giblina
2007-07-19, 07:40 PM
I'm not totally sure whether you're being sarcastic or not...

I was being very sarcastic :smallsmile:


what they describe though in that interview... isn't a lich. Being a lich is quite a bit more than just deciding "Yes, it's worth giving up my physical health and vitality in order to live forever"

I completely agree (hence why I said that, published or not, that book is stupid).


just to be absolutely clear... I have no problem with a good aligned positive energy undead creature... but that's not a lich.

Agreed. Baelnorn, for example, are lich-like. Emphasis on the "like". They're not liches.

I don't know why Libris mortis authors didn't just make a good aligned undead guardian and call it something else (except I do know... they put very little thought into it).

Tormsskull
2007-07-19, 07:48 PM
Actually, my statement that good liches were possible by RAW was specifically in regards to the "Good Lich" variant which is printed in Libris Mortis on page 156. No interpretation required. Just some reading. Its a rule, written in a D&D book, published by WoTC, using the 3.5 system. Thus, RAW.


Oh, my bad. See, when you said:



Conversely, there is also nothing in the rules to prevent a lich (who started out evil) from becoming good. Alignment is always mutable.


and



And... helm of opposite alignment anyone? Instant good lich. You could even set up your conversion to include one. And of course, you'd feel such guilt afterwards that your entire existence from that point forward would be a reflection of that guilt and your need to atone.


and



Even without Atonement, there is the Helm of Opposite Alignment that I noted above. Instant Good.


and



First... Helm of Opposite Alignment. While it is arguable that its a mind effecting spell and thus of no use on a lich, if you don't go that route and think that it can work, there is nothing RAW or RP from precluding you from using it in this manner


I got the impression you were referencing Helm of Opposite Alignment as your main argument for the possibility of Good Liches.





I think we agree 100% there. But a player can choose to begin playing his character in a manner so as to eventually change his alignment. That's why there is a discussion of this exact thing on page 134 of the DMG.

That's your interpretation of the rules. No where does it say that if a player plays his character in a specific way, that the DM is required to have an alignment change.

In fact, it says:



You control alignment changes, not the players.

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 07:53 PM
Any RAW for that? Nope? Didn't think so. I think its a great interpretation. I think it makes sense. I also think that its interpretation. In your game, that's how it works. By RAW though, which is what I am discussing, it does not work that way.

No where does it say you have to like all the things about your transformation. You have to commit the unspeakably evil act, blah blah blah... don't have to like it. Just be willing. I willingly do things that I really don't want to do all the time. I am sure you do too. Its called a job. :smallsmile:/shrug If you want to throw RAW arguments around, do it to someone who actually cares about the RAW.

There's nothing by RAW that says that level 1 fighters can't shoot balls of fire from their eyes and bolts of lightning from their arse, or that a dead character can't continue to take actions.


The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character.

what exactly constitutes a willing character in this context is not defined; my contention is, that by any reasonable definition of the word "willing" you cannot be both willing to become a lich and desire to remain a good person afterwards. If you desire to remain a good person, then you are not truly willing to become evil an evil... and if you take action to try to remain good before becoming a lich you are certainly not willing.

A. Is your character willing to become an evil monster (ie, a lich)?
B. Does your character wish to become good again after becoming a lich.

if A is false and B is false: Sorry, you can't become a lich, you're not willing.
if A is false and B is true: Sorry, you can't becoem a lich, you're not willing.
if A is false and B is false: You become a lich; congratulations!
if A is true and B is true. impossibly situation by any reasonable definition of willing. Sorry, your character is lying to herself about A being true, and you are demonstrating that unwillingness by trying to get around that restriction. You can't become a lich since you're not actually willing to be evil.

Yakk
2007-07-19, 07:54 PM
"Raukaith, the Demon-Hunter, Slayer of the Cult of Bamophet chills me out a little.. I mean, sure, a century ago, he saved the world three our four times against an army of demons, and never asked a thing in return. He could even have become a powerful tyrant, but the only thing he asked was a small piece of small estate nobody wanted for his wizard tower. He even continued doing good deeds for the peoples over time.. But there is this one this, I guess, that makes me think of him as an absolute evil man. Yhea, I heard he became an undead. It doesn't matter to me that he saved the lives in the city against the dragon, three months ago, and helped repair the damages. To me, he's still a bad guy, and somebody should destroy him."

You forgot the unspeakably evil act.

I really don't want to describe unspeakably evil acts, but let's do it by analogy.

First, think of someone that even mass murderers shun. Now find someone that even that person would shun. Multiply by 1000.

Hitler was a saint compared to this act. Stalin a being of love and goodness. Hannibal Lecter would puke from the mere description.

Next, remove your soul -- your ability to change and grow -- at the very moment you did that act (see various sources that describe why undead haven't taken over the world).


My character concept of Raukaith has a good reason, IMHO, for wanting to become a true Lich, even if he is Lawful Good.

And he's willing to engage in unspeakable evil to do this?

Do you simply lack imagination?


He gathers up several kittens, kills them, and eats their souls with fava beans and a nice cianti. Following that, he becomes undead

That is a Speakably evil act.
A

On the "unspeakable evil act" I seriously just think its a way to make it sound "cool" nothing more, there is nothing "unspeakable" about it since we can quite well... speak about it ;)

No, if you can speak about it, it isn't evil enough yet.

...

Second, the Lich template is listed as Evil. If you are not evil, you are not a Lich. My interpritation is that failing to be Evil would make you a pile of bones.

...


You are free to interpret it that way. Doesn't say so RAW, but you are certainly free to interpret it that way. Not how I see it, but sure.

Undead:
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).

Compulsion:
A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works....

Helm of Opposite Alignment:
Alteration in alignment is mental ...

...


on a side note, 1 reason i could imagine for a good lich is when becomming 1 was the lesser of 2 evils.

I can speak about the death of every intelligence and god in the D&D universe without being unspeakably evil.

So what, again, is this greater evil?

And if you, say, had to tear 10 innocents apart, limb from limb, and feed them to those that loved them most in this world, in order to save the life of 15 innocents, wouldn't that sort of drive any good character a bit crazy?

Now, imagine if the acts required where worse by many orders of magnitude. Because what I described was merely speakable evil.

giblina
2007-07-19, 07:56 PM
Originally Posted by DMG Pg. 134
You control alignment changes, not the players.

Brilliant quote, Tormskull :)

Tyger
2007-07-19, 08:02 PM
Brilliant quote, Tormskull :)

Which is why I actually pointed out that whole section. Even gave a page number. Of course the DM is in control of that, they control damned near everything. However, a DM who is completely unresponsive to good RP on the part of a player that should change their alignment, well... in my opinion, is not a good DM.

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 08:09 PM
Which is why I actually pointed out that whole section. Even gave a page number. Of course the DM is in control of that, they control damned near everything. However, a DM who is completely unresponsive to good RP on the part of a player that should change their alignment, well... in my opinion, is not a good DM.Nor should the DM reward bad roleplaying and metagaming (ie, someone who is willing to become a lich but then immediately starts trying to be a "good guy" to avoid having to be evil)

An act of unspeakable evil may take eons to repent, if you can be redeemed from it at all.

My interpretation is that you can't truly repent and while you remain lich; to truly repent, you would have to give up what you gained by that unspeakably evil act.

giblina
2007-07-19, 08:12 PM
However, a DM who is completely unresponsive to good RP on the part of a player that should change their alignment, well... in my opinion, is not a good DM.

And where we now disagree is what qualifies as "good RP". I think it would be horrendously god awful RP to try and argue that your lich wants to become a good guy.

My opinion as DM would be that your character knew full well what devil's pact they were entering into when they sacrificed those babies, and now that the deed is done they lack the soul that would provide them with even the ability to desire redemption.

Their only hope is that someone loved them so much in life that they hunt their lich down, destroy it, and use true resurrection to restore them to life (as a non-lich) at which point said character could undertake an atonement for their misdeeds (since they're now living again).

Tyger
2007-07-19, 08:22 PM
Again, we're talking interpretation here. I'm not talking about that. I am talking about RAW. If you don't care about RAW, why engage someone who is discussing based on RAW? Each of you, indeed all of us, are free to use the rules or ignore them. Good old rule zero. Gotta love it.

And sure, the rules don't say that your level one fighter can't shoot whatever out of his extremities. But the rules do explicitly allow for good liches. Interpret it how you want, but it is your interpretation. No more correct or incorrect than any other. Its the way you run your game, great. Go with that. Have fun with that. I'll have fun running my game my way. That's the beauty of it.

And we have already discussed, and demonstrated, that there could be really great RP reasons for a good character to become a lich and still maintain his "goodness" or at least seek to recover it immediately, knowing what lichdom is going to do to him. You can, and likely will, :smallwink: call them "absurdly contrived situations"... go with that. It works for your game. My way works for my game.

giblina
2007-07-19, 08:31 PM
I am talking about RAW.

We are in the realm of RAW though.

We've established, per RAW, that your character becomes evil upon aquiring the lich template.

We've established, per RAW, that the DM is in control of alignment changes.

Therefore, if I say that a guilty lich who wants to redeem himself is a lame concept that will not be allowed, then I'm still completely within the RAW by doing so. Your character became evil when he became a lich, and I am the one who decides when and if it's possible to change that alignment. It becomes irrelevant that Libris Mortis has a good lich variant described, because I'm the one who gets to say, per RAW, whether your lich can become good or not (and I say no).

You make a lich in my campaign, he's permanently evil. I'll warn you of this before you undertake such a procedure, so there's not going to be any surprises for you, but that's the end of the story :smalltongue:

Caelestion
2007-07-19, 08:38 PM
And we have already discussed, and demonstrated, that there could be really great RP reasons for a good character to become a lich and still maintain his "goodness" or at least seek to recover it immediately, knowing what lichdom is going to do to him. You can, and likely will, :smallwink: call them "absurdly contrived situations"... go with that. It works for your game. My way works for my game.
There could easily be many reasons you want to commit unspeakably evil things. (For me, it's gotta be finding someone who can accurately and consistently spell-check.)

There could be many reasons that realising that yes, you want to be a perversion of all that is living and attain the ultimate evil nerd-points. (Well, it's preferable to bathing, eating and sleeping.)

How about naming a perversion of all the natural laws (other than me!) who exists in RAW and yet is good-aligned?

Tyger
2007-07-19, 08:40 PM
We are in the realm of RAW though.

We've established, per RAW, that your character becomes evil upon aquiring the lich template.

We've established, per RAW, that the DM is in control of alignment changes.

Therefore, if I say that a guilty lich who wants to redeem himself is a lame concept that will not be allowed, then I'm still completely within the RAW by doing so. Your character became evil when he became a lich, and I am the one who decides when and if it's possible to change that alignment. It becomes irrelevant that Libris Mortis has a good lich variant described, because I'm the one who gets to say, per RAW, whether your lich can become good or not (and I say no).

You make a lich in my campaign, he's permanently evil. I'll warn you of this before you undertake such a procedure, so there's not going to be any surprises for you, but that's the end of the story :smalltongue:

Then you aren't in the RAW, because by RAW, you can redeem your alignment, you can (depending on your interpretation of what "curse" means and what the helm actually does) use a magical item to change your alignment, and you can, indubitably, be a good lich. The important words in your above post are "in my campaign"... because that's the way that you rule it. Its not RAW though, its your rule. RAW is explicit that it is possible to play a good lich. That is the one, fundamental, part that you don't want to acknowledge. And in your game, that's great. Just please don't call it RAW. Its not.


How about naming a perversion of all the natural laws (other than me!) who exists in RAW and yet is good-aligned?

The good liches laid out in Libris Mortis. Unless you want fantasy characters? Or from modules? D&D novels? What are you looking for here? This is an awfully subjective area. :smallbiggrin:

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 08:45 PM
While libris motris may state that there can be good liches, there are several sets of rules that explicitly state that the act of becoming a lich changes you to evil; when there are contradictory rules, blindly arguing that one set of rules says XXX is not really relevant, you have to include interpretation. Do you have a quote of a rule that explicitly states that there is a way to become a lich without also becoming evil? A rule simply allowing for good liches isn't sufficient. Otherwise, we're both equally RAW.

For your metagaming work around using the helm of opposite alignment, you're interpreting what being a "willing character" means, just like I am.

As far as alignment changes. RAW says that alignment changes are decided by the DM. There's no other RAW that covers the situation.


I haven't seen any actual situation presented that shows becoming a lich the lesser of two evils, absurdly contrived or otherwise. I invite you to try and present one where choosing to become a lich is the least evil choice (which still makes it evil, its just least evil).


I haven't seen a single good RP reason for a good character to become a lich; I've seen a couple of very poor RP reasons. I think we have already established that my standards on "good RP" may be a little more stringent than yours (re: are we playing the same game).

mudbunny
2007-07-19, 08:50 PM
RAW is explicit that it is possible to play a good lich.

Could you provide a reference for that?

Edited to add:

And Libris Mortis is an *optional* book. If you want to talk about RAW, you are talking about the Core books and the SRD.

giblina
2007-07-19, 08:57 PM
Then you aren't in the RAW, because...

The comments by the other 3 posters above addresses all your remarks in the same manner I would. I'll save you some spam and won't rehash everything they just said.

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 08:58 PM
by RAW, you can redeem your alignmentIs there actually a rule for that? do you have a reference for that? As far as I recall these are the applicable rules, and neither explicitly says that a character can redeem their alignment (or what they can redeem it for). There is no rule other than GM fiat, so you aren't actually arguing RAW...


If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions. (PHB Pg. 104)
You control alignment changes, not the players. (DMG Pg. 134)


Can we move past the "I'm arguing RAW" chip on your shoulder? It's not really relevant to the discussion. Once people start talking about good vs evil, you've moved into interpretation land, and wearing RAW blinders is counter-productive.

Vorgen
2007-07-19, 09:01 PM
D&D is a place of moral certainty. In this place there are very strictly defined moral codes of good, evil, and neutrality, and everybody can find them out with a bit of effort. You've got tons of spells, abilities, and even objects that can tell if something is evil or not. There is no ambiguity.

The ambiguous morality of real life is simply not present in D&D. Therefore, liches are evil. Full stop.

You know, I'd really like to DM a game with some of these people who try to insert their ambiguous moral outlook into a D&D game. After they run their mouth trying to justify their actions, I'd just get someone to cast Detect Evil on them. Repeat until they get it.

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 09:05 PM
<snip>you're right above me so no need to quote, but it's best to be clear who I'm talking to. That's really a bad way to handle the situation. Personally I'd walk out of any game where a DM started trying to use the game as a soap box for his interpretations of morality like that.

The rules of good vs evil are open to interpretation; they are not completely and clearly spelled out in concrete terms. Even if they were, who the hell cares? The rules exist to make the game playable, nothing more, and certainly not so that you can assert your power over them as DM.

While the DM is the final arbiter on how morality is judged, ignoring how the players feel like that is profoundly juvenile.

Caelestion
2007-07-19, 09:08 PM
Unless you want fantasy characters? Or from modules? D&D novels? What are you looking for here? This is an awfully subjective area. :smallbiggrin:
Well, I was thinking actual characters, either in reputable fantasy novels or fully statted out characters in D&D books. Up to you, my dear hunk of strangely-good-aligned and still-unspeakably-evil poster associate.

Vorgen
2007-07-19, 09:11 PM
Personally I'd walk out of any game where a DM started trying to use the game as a soap box for his interpretations of morality like that.

That's the thing, I wouldn't be projecting my personal morality into the D&D universe, I'd be using the created morality in the game as part of the game.



The rules of good vs evil are open to interpretation; they are not completely and clearly spelled out in concrete terms.

So the only person who can use the game as a soap box for their interpretations of morality is YOU! Ok, I understand now.

giblina
2007-07-19, 09:16 PM
See? Just talking about liches has us all riled up.

They must be evil. They're sowing the seeds of hatred and dissent.

Those bastards!

Ozymandias
2007-07-19, 09:24 PM
If a character played a lich and wanted to take non-evil actions, would you force him/her to take a different action, though? That's kind of against the spirit of role-playing...

It would be preferable to disallow PC liches in that circumstance (in my opinion), skirting the problem entirely. I've always disliked alignment restrictions/falling Paladins (not the concept, the application), but you could pursue that road as well (Lich loses class/race abilities by becoming non-evil, or something).

On the whole "Is is RAW or isn't it" debate: you're arguing semantics. It's allowed by the rules, but the actual change requires the DM's decision, so it's sort of grey area.

To the actual purpose of the thread, the four-level Lich template thing mentioned seems like a fine solution.

Vorgen
2007-07-19, 09:30 PM
I'd have those non-evil actions backfire. A lich's strength is in his evilness. If he started doing good actions that would be like showing weakness, so some goody two shoes paladin would come up and take advantage of his seeming goodness to get a good whack at his phylactery.

giblina
2007-07-19, 09:34 PM
If a character played a lich and wanted to take non-evil actions, would you force him/her to take a different action, though? That's kind of against the spirit of role-playing....

You deal with it through consequences.

The DM is also in control of XP awards, and as such can dock XP for poor behaviour with respect to the character. So your lich is absolutely free to assist the town with their orc problem and give money to the poor and help build a church of pelor.

He just gains 0 XP for the time he spends doing all that work.

You haven't stopped him from roleplaying in the least, you've just made it clear what kind of behaviour is necessary for the lich to continue to advance. If he doesn't mind staying level 11 forever he can behave as good as he wants :smalltongue:

PS: Unless he comes up with a convincing explanation for why he's doing all those good deeds. If he says, for example, he's creating the church such that he can seal everyone inside and sacrifice them to dark gods in exchange for some more power, then it's a different story.

Dausuul
2007-07-19, 09:47 PM
Could you provide a reference for that?

Edited to add:

And Libris Mortis is an *optional* book. If you want to talk about RAW, you are talking about the Core books and the SRD.

While I'm reluctant to get drawn further into the "good liches" argument--talking about liches and alignment is almost as bad as talking about paladins and alignment--I do feel I should point out that Libris Mortis is RAW. RAW is "rules as written." If it's a 3.5 book published by WotC, it counts. Libris Mortis is not core, but it definitely is RAW.

Duaneyo1
2007-07-19, 09:55 PM
A combination of you know what, removing your soul and negative energy makes you eternally evil. You can try to all the good you want and it won't change your alignment or how 99.9999% of the world views you. You can save all the little gnome babies in the village and all the paladins in the realm will still quest to destroy you, villagers run in fear, and other evil people will soil themselves at the mention of your name.

If some player tried to pull crap about becoming a lich for a "good cause" I would rule that they didn't mix the lich potion correctly and it leaves them dead as a coffin nail and unable to be resurected. If you're going to do acts that would make Stalin, Hitler, and Vlad weep with sorrow you're going to be a good little monkey and take everything that comes with an evil alignment.

Porthos
2007-07-19, 10:01 PM
You know, I find it interesting that beings that are literally Pure Evil can be redeemed and become Good (ala too many sourcebooks to count), yet some people on here say that no lich can ever redeem themselves.

As I said, interesting. :smallsmile:

Count me in the camp that someone better have a fantastic role playing reason, be prepared to devote years of game time to it, and to be prepared to suffer the consequences as he goes down his path. And also be prepared to be constantly hit over the head, attacked-on-sight, guilt-tripped, and pretty much in all ways spat-in-the-face by people who don't give a hoot that the unspeakable abomination of all that is good and proper is trying to redeem. :smalltongue:

I'd probably even import some of the Beast Within rules from WW to deal with such a character. "Oh I'm sorry, you failed your DC 30 Will Save. I think I'll run your character for a short while." :smallamused: (unless, of course, he was being a fantastic role-player. Then I'd let him slide..... A little.)

True Redemption is never easy, especially for one who willingly damned themselves. But it still is possible, by RAW and by my general philosophy. Just be prepared to be raked over the coals for a long, long time. :smallamused:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Of course that's my message for PC's. I reserve the right to have one of my NPC liches see the light and instantly reform (again ala too many sourcebooks to count). After all, they aren't trying to be cute about a Character Concept. They're just serving a story/plot point. :smallbiggrin:

Unfair? Yep. But I never claimed DnD was supposed to be fair. :smalltongue:

Tyger
2007-07-19, 10:10 PM
Is there actually a rule for that? do you have a reference for that? As far as I recall these are the applicable rules, and neither explicitly says that a character can redeem their alignment (or what they can redeem it for). There is no rule other than GM fiat, so you aren't actually arguing RAW...


If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions. (PHB Pg. 104)
You control alignment changes, not the players. (DMG Pg. 134)


Can we move past the "I'm arguing RAW" chip on your shoulder? It's not really relevant to the discussion. Once people start talking about good vs evil, you've moved into interpretation land, and wearing RAW blinders is counter-productive.

OK, arguing that it requires GM discretion, thus it isn't a rule, is not going anywhere. EVERYTHING in the game requires GM discretion. All I am saying, and those who believe they are countering the argument are either a) unable to read or b) refusing to admit the point, is that per RAW, good liches can exist. Full stop. There can be zero disagreement there. The rules specifically provide for good aligned liches. This is indisputable.

As for the "RAW" chip on my shoulder???? Why is it suddenly wrong to point out, in defense of the OP and the subsequent discussions, that the rules do specifically allow the character to do what (s)he wants to do? Since when does the "I don't follow the rules" crowd have exclusive jurisdiction to discuss things on the boards. Its not a chip on my shoulder. Its a fact. RAW allows it. You can't interpret that any other way. You can forbid it in your game. I don't know how many other ways it can be said. Its permitted. Its allowed. Its OK. Its fine. It is written on page 156, Libris Mortis.

In my game world, if a player came to me with a good enough reason, a great friggin backstory, and we were playing in a high enough level campaign, and doing so would not blow my world up, I'd say "sure, you can play a good lich." And I would be within my rights as the DM. I'd also be within RAW. You could tell that same player, "pound sand, there's no such thing as a good lich in D&D. Its impossible." And you'd be within your rights as a DM. But you would not be within RAW.

Now, feel free to tell me why you don't like that. Explain how you handle it in your game. Tell me why that doesn't make sense, hell tell me why the entire D&D rules system doesn't make sense. But don't tell me its not RAW, because it simply is. To state otherwise is simply willful ignorance.

For the record, the rules aren't inherently evil. There's nothing wrong with actually using them. Sometimes they don't work for a particular game and particular DM / group. Thats when we change them. Which is why this is an interactive game rather than a video game. :)

TO CAELESTION: Darth Vader. Spike from Buffy. Gollum in LoTR (until he goes back to evil anyway). Scrooge. Severus Snape (I hope!). Spawn. Hawkeye (of the Avengers). The list goes on and on. My personal favorite I can't even remember the name. From the Cold Fire series. Borderline demonic lord who sacrificed his whole family to attain immortality. Main antagonist for the first two books. Becomes the hero at the end of the third... damn I wish I could remember the name! Gerald Tarrant? Something like that.

Jayabalard
2007-07-19, 10:15 PM
So noone the only person who can use the game as a soap box for their interpretations of morality [is YOU! Fixed that for you.

It's noone place to use the game as a soap box; that's what forums about the game are for.


You know, I find it interesting that beings that are literally Pure Evil can be redeemed and become Good (ala too many sourcebooks to count), yet some people on here say that no lich can ever redeem themselves. Actually I get the feeling that those people would probably be consistent and not have it be possible for those beings of pure evil to redeem themselves either, RAW or no RAW. Some people prefer a more black and white approach to morality and some people like alot of gray area and get off on coming up with twisted situations for the sake of turning a stereotype on it's ear; some people treat morality as a very important part of the game and some people pretty much ignore it all together except when it influences a die roll. Most people fall somewhere in the middle of all of that.


TO CAELESTION: Darth Vader. Spike from Buffy. Gollum in LoTR (until he goes back to evil anyway). Scrooge. Severus Snape (I hope!). Spawn. Hawkeye (of the Avengers). The list goes on and on. My personal favorite I can't even remember the name. From the Cold Fire series. Borderline demonic lord who sacrificed his whole family to attain immortality. Main antagonist for the first two books. Becomes the hero at the end of the third... damn I wish I could remember the name! Gerald Tarrant? Something like that.

Vader: isn't "a perversion of all the natural laws" and his redemption was his death (which was listed by pretty much everyone as a possible way for a lich to seek redemption), and without his sacrifice, that single act is not enough for an alignment change.
spike: Can't comment, not familiar with buffy.
Gollumn: Never becomes good, or even neutral.
Scrooge: Isn't "a perversion of all the natural laws"
Severus Snape: isn't "a perversion of all the natural laws" and either Never becomes good and doesn't seek redemption or is good the whole time and doesn't need redemption :smallcool:
Spawn: closest so far; I only followed the series toward the beginning, so it's possible he changed more later, but as far as I'm aware he never really becomes "good" just neutral aka "better than a hitman/demonspawn."
Hawkeye: isn't "a perversion of all the natural laws" as far as I'm aware.
Gerald Tarrant: He's still working on his redemption after 900+ years. That's similar to the time frame I gave for a lich's redemption (and certainly longer than a game goes on). I wouldn't place him as good, just neutral.



Now, feel free to tell me why you don't like that. Explain how you handle it in your game. Tell me why that doesn't make sense, hell tell me why the entire D&D rules system doesn't make sense. But don't tell me its not RAW, because it simply is. To state otherwise is simply willful ignorance.it's not RAW... it's your interpretation of two contradictory rules, ie, your interpretation on RAI.

Iclyious
2007-07-19, 10:19 PM
TO CAELESTION: Darth Vader. Spike from Buffy. Gollum in LoTR (until he goes back to evil anyway). Scrooge. Severus Snape (I hope!). Spawn. Hawkeye (of the Avengers). The list goes on and on. My personal favorite I can't even remember the name. From the Cold Fire series. Borderline demonic lord who sacrificed his whole family to attain immortality. Main antagonist for the first two books. Becomes the hero at the end of the third... damn I wish I could remember the name! Gerald Tarrant? Something like that.

You have the name correct. He fits with what some other people were saying too. Formerly the highest type of Good you could think of, one of the figureheads of his church. Condemned by the rest of the church for his use of magic, so sold his soul for immortality. He was already diehard evil for centuries before he reverted to a slightly twisted form of good, or maybe neutral with helpful tendencies.

giblina
2007-07-19, 10:38 PM
Darth Vader is fairly lich-like. He exchanged his last remnants of humanity for power, succumbing fully to the dark side of the force.

He was redeemed... and that redemption killed him. I already listed that as a viable way for a lich to be redeemed :)

If you lich has loved ones, they can hunt him down, destroy him, and true-resurrect his remains. With his soul restored to his body, he could now walk the path of true atonement.

Ruerl
2007-07-20, 05:04 AM
You deal with it through consequences.

The DM is also in control of XP awards, and as such can dock XP for poor behaviour with respect to the character. So your lich is absolutely free to assist the town with their orc problem and give money to the poor and help build a church of pelor.

He just gains 0 XP for the time he spends doing all that work.

You haven't stopped him from roleplaying in the least, you've just made it clear what kind of behaviour is necessary for the lich to continue to advance. If he doesn't mind staying level 11 forever he can behave as good as he wants :smalltongue:

PS: Unless he comes up with a convincing explanation for why he's doing all those good deeds. If he says, for example, he's creating the church such that he can seal everyone inside and sacrifice them to dark gods in exchange for some more power, then it's a different story.

What about: I want to build up the church and help the city to grow, and I do so in disguise hiding my nature, so that the city will grow and I can use it for trade relations that will further my plans a lot more than simply sacrificing them to some god I don't care about.
I mean... should I actually pay homeage to that god? Nah, that'd require sharing and giving stuff away.

ie: Its very possible to do very good deeds for an exstremly evil character for very good reasons, the core of the matter is not only what you do but how you do it, if a person continually does good deeds only for his own benefit, does that make him good? I'd say no.

At the core of the matter, the problem I see with the lich being good in the long run does'nt have anything to do with his actions, it is that he is empowered by negative energy for wich he is a constant gate to the world, his very existence brings negative energy into the world, negative energy is harmfull to all life, that means that his very existence harms the world, if he can find a way to alter that property, ie: be a lich and have his soul in that uncomfromtable small apartment and retain positive energy, then I could see him as good, that however, would not be a lich as they are normally understood and making such a thing happen... well "bring out the wish spells"

And for the record, I still don't see anything "unspeakably evil" in becoming a lich, the method has been descriped before and yes its horrid, but its not "unspeakably" so, keep that "unspeakably" thing for creatures made of evil, like demons and devils.
"unspeakably evil" is again just another way of saying "I am too lazy to write up the process or even copy paste it from earlier editions, so i'll just write it off with a single sentence".

Any ritual requiring the blood of a virginial baby killed with a specific poison, the blood of someone killed by a specific type of poisoning within a set duration and some of the poison incidentally required as the means to kill said baby and said person, well the requirements are so awfull specific that you can bet a Solar's soul on that you will have to create the ingredients yourself, involving that you kill said people in a specific way.

Sure sounds like it puts you in the evil category to me, offcourse the method descriped elsewhere is from an old book, and *gasp* Faerűn so it must be crazy? Oh well, I still like it.

Bottom line though is that the "good lich" descriped in the Libris Mortis must be made from positive energy to be good, hence his turn undead ability and his immunity to turning, most people miss the significance of that, but the turning immunity implies, gasp, positive energy, ie: not a standard lich.

Finally note: The good lich is a VARIANT rule, even in Libris Mortis, the main theme of Libris Mortis is NOT of supporting good undead, its based on the fact that undead tend to be well evil, the feats are based on that as well.

In fact, they start the sentence of a good lich with "though conceptually an oxymoron"

Xuincherguixe
2007-07-20, 06:11 AM
Is it just me, or does the idea good punishing evil because it's less evil seem kind of twisted?

Tyger
2007-07-20, 07:16 AM
it's not RAW... it's your interpretation of two contradictory rules, ie, your interpretation on RAI.

OK, for the last time... WoTC has published RULES that are WRITTEN down which allow for good liches. If its a RULE, that is WRITTEN down by WoTC, then its Rules As Written. For reasons that I can't fathom, you are blatantly ignoring that one fact. I've given you the book and the page number. Ignoring a rule doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It may not be core, but it is RAW.

Yes, you can, per the rules, play a good aligned lich. This is not contestable. You can argue the contrary until you are blue in the face, but you are simply wrong.

giblina
2007-07-20, 07:26 AM
Ignoring a rule doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It may not be core, but it is RAW.

Yes, you can, per the rules, play a good aligned lich. This is not contestable. You can argue the contrary until you are blue in the face, but you are simply wrong.

No, you're the one ignoring the rules.

You can, per the rules, play a good aligned lich, if your DM agrees to change your alignment.

That is the rules as written.

If your DM says no, you may be stuck with what you feel is a too restrictive DM, but you're still within the rules as written.

You're waving one rule around and completely ignoring the other. Both the player's handbook and the dungeon master's guide say, clear as day, that the DM is the one who has complete control over alignment changes.

Vorgen
2007-07-20, 07:26 AM
Is it just me, or does the idea good punishing evil because it's less evil seem kind of twisted?

No, that doesn't seem twisted at all. That seems like the opposite of twisted.

sikyon
2007-07-20, 07:31 AM
I don't think a DM really can control alignments. If they keep playing a good character, and you don't change their alignment, then you are in fact tossing the alignment system out the window. You also can't just change a player's alignment and tell them to play that way if they refuse to do it. You would have to take over their character, which goes beyond the bounds of the DM's power (DM's world, PC's story). Sure you can not hand out XP for good acts, but who cares? what are you going to start doing after that, throw higher and higher CR monsters at them? Until they die? That'd just be poor DM'ing in any other case (and thus also be poor DM'ing in this case, because it would be without reason.) Will the player care about not advancing past level 11? Probably not, seeing as how he's a person that gets to play different characters at a whim.

Tyger
2007-07-20, 07:36 AM
No, you're the one ignoring the rules.

You can, per the rules, play a good aligned lich, if your DM agrees to change your alignment.

That is the rules as written.

If your DM says no, you may be stuck with what you feel is a too restrictive DM, but you're still within the rules as written.

You're waving one rule around and completely ignoring the other. Both the player's handbook and the dungeon master's guide say, clear as day, that the DM is the one who has complete control over alignment changes.

I can't decide if this is just trying to get me riled up and screaming at the monitor (its been known to happen, usually during Tiger Woods 2007 :) ) of if maybe we're just talking about different things here.

I'll be the first to concede that playing a good aligned lich does require your DM to allow it. Granted, playing a level one human fighter also requires your DM to allow it. Guess what? There are rules, written by WoTC, for playing both. Saying that it requires DM approval does not invalidate the point that it is possible, based on the RAW, to play a good aligned lich.

Please, if that's all you are saying, that it requires DM approval, stop. I acknowledge this. I admit it. I agree with it. You are right. 100% right. Is there any other way that I can agree with this that will satisfy you? :smallsmile: Its a fact that everything any player wants to do in any D&D game requires DM approval. We agree on this. But... requiring DM approval is not the same as saying its not RAW. It is Rules As Written.

Of course DMs are free to say no. I've stated this myself probably a dozen times. In most campaigns, I think its likely, and probably even preferable, that a DM say no to a good aligned lich. They just can't turn to their player and say "I'm not going to allow this because there are no rules that allow for it." Because they are wrong. They are perfectly free to say "I don't like Lbris Mortis, so no" or maybe "Come on Bob... why don't you just play Pun-Pun?" or even "Frank, that is the friggin cheesiest thing I have ever heard. No way am I allowing what is possibly the embodiement of all that is abhorent and evil to be played as a good character. No." But they simply can no say that there are no rules for it.

If that's all you are saying, that it requires DM fiat... sure. You win. I admitted that about 20 posts ago. You won a long time ago. Just remember, that Dwarven cleric also required DM fiat. And there are rules for playing both.

:smallsmile:

mudbunny
2007-07-20, 08:02 AM
I'll be the first to concede that playing a good aligned lich does require your DM to allow it. Granted, playing a level one human fighter also requires your DM to allow it. Guess what? There are optional rules, written by WoTC, for playing both. Saying that it requires DM approval does not invalidate the point that it is possible, based on optional rules, to play a good aligned lich.

I fixed your post for you. :smalltongue:

That is all that I am arguing. Libris Mortis (or however it is spelled) is an *optional* rulebook. The majority of people, when talking about RAW, count only the core books, as that is the minimum that people require to play. Otherwise, everyone's RAW are different.

Again, optional rules are not, technically, under RAW. And, as has been mentioned, the good lich is a rule that is labelled as optional in a book that is, by its very nature, optional.

Edit - This discussion is starting to go in circles now, and is more-or-less degenerating into "Yes it can" "No it can't" "Yes it can" "No it can't." I get enough of that from my 2-year old daughter at home.

However, should you wish to discuss what falls under RAW, I would be glad to do so. Start up a new thread, and I am there.

giblina
2007-07-20, 08:06 AM
Of course everything requires DM approval.

But the authors had the good sense, in both books, to go the extra step of saying that alignment changes specifically are up to the DM.

They don't stick that note everywhere. They don't say that the decision about when your character is going to multiclass is up to the DM, nor that the skills you pick are up to the DM, nor that the weapons you buy are up to the DM, etc. Of course the DM has some background control over these things, in so far as he controls the world, but they're not sticking the text in their about the DM being the authority on those issues.

Alignment is something integral to a character, and easily abused. A character can work out a lot of background for why their character changed alignment and have it still be abuse.

The grip that evil has on liches is fiercly strong. They're fueled by the negative energy plane... elemental anti-life. Their soul is no longer a part of their body.

Can a lich become good? Possibly. But only for a short time, and only when initiated by someone else. Darth Vader never came around to good on his own. It took someone who loved him in life to try to help restore his humanity to him.

As for the short time, it's this. Any good-aligned character would absolutely abhor the state they're in (as a liche) and change it. Becoming a positive-energy fueled lich is nonsensical. Positive energy is elemental life-force... it fuels the living, not the dead. It might be a transitional step into another form (like those super-good floatie things from 2ed Darksun campaign), but it would definately be a transition away from anything recognizable as a lich. Just sticking a turn-undead ability on top of a lich is not an appropriate "fix" for the situation.

Other options would be true-resurrecting the character (and becoming a good non-lich), or just dying (and becoming a good dead lich).

If you want to feel that I'm the iron-fisted tyrant DM for hell because I won't support so patently ridiculous a concept as a good lich walking around, so be it. I feel you're being unfair in your characterizations of me for standing strong on one ruling.

Dausuul
2007-07-20, 08:10 AM
I'll be the first to concede that playing a good aligned lich does require your DM to allow it. Granted, playing a level one human fighter also requires your DM to allow it. Guess what? There are rules, written by WoTC, for playing both. Saying that it requires DM approval does not invalidate the point that it is possible, based on the RAW, to play a good aligned lich.

I think the point he's making is that to stop you playing a level 1 human fighter, the DM has to specifically intervene with a house rule saying you can't. However, changing your alignment only happens when the DM says it happens. There aren't any rules saying "after this number of good deeds, you have been SAVED! Hallelujah!"

Edit: Ninja'd.

Jayabalard
2007-07-20, 08:13 AM
OK, for the last time... WoTC has published RULES that are WRITTEN down which allow for good liches. If its a RULE, that is WRITTEN down by WoTC, then its Rules As Written. For reasons that I can't fathom, you are blatantly ignoring that one fact. I've given you the book and the page number. Ignoring a rule doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It may not be core, but it is RAW.

Yes, you can, per the rules, play a good aligned lich. This is not contestable. You can argue the contrary until you are blue in the face, but you are simply wrong.When you become a lich, you become evil, according to rules in several sources.

If you act in a manner not consistent with evil alignment, the DM may change your alignment. Not must... MAY. This isn't a rule 0 ruling; it's not a houserule; it's not homebrew; it's RAW.

Since the only way to play a good lich is through DM rulings (not rule 0, RAW states that DMs control alignment, not players), any "but the RAW says XXX" arguments are irrelevant. The only thing that is meaningful to discuss are opinions and interpretations. Waving around the RAW like it's some sort of holy document in that sort of discussion is about as useful as arguing that per RAW you can still take actions after your character dies.... it's meaningless.

By the way, I find it kind of interesting that you gave a page number without actually quoting anything...

Driderman
2007-07-20, 08:19 AM
Whoa, this place became a little tense all of a sudden.

As I see it:
A premeditated Unspeakable Act Of Evil changes your alignment to evil. After all, you can't accidentally do a lichification ritual. It requires your active participation which means you have to figure out what the Unspeakable Act Of Evil is and decide 'yeah, I'm okay with that'.
Even though you're doing it for the greater good, you are still quite willingly deciding to perform an UAOE, most likely you've spent plenty of time researching why. You've had plenty of chances to turn aside from this Unspeakably Evil project during your research and planning, doing the ritual itself is the point of no return. You did, now you're evil.

Characters of any alignment are expected to roleplay their alignments, at least where I come from. I'm pretty sure the PHB suggests this to be a good idea as well, but I won't bother looking it up. I admit, you guys' Quote-Fu is bigger than mine :smallbiggrin:
Should the now-lichified character decide not to roleplay his evil alignment, I'd personally feel that being poor roleplay on the players part. Of course, no one says you have to be a megalomanical mass-murderer just because your evil and even evil characters have things they care about. You're just, well, evil which is undisputable.
The price of immortality, in the case of the lich, is an evil alignment, not to mention eternal damnation of your immortal soul and other such side-effects. If the player actively tries to become good as soon as (s)he gained the template, I'd say someone was abusing the system and if I had a player who planned out beforehand the Helm Of Opposite Alignment plan or similiar, I'd most likely veto it on the grounds of aggravating metagaming and technicality-abuse.

In short: Taking a template, any template, and actively trying to lose the 'disadvantages' it imparts on you is simply 'not cricket', as the saying goes.
If you want to become good after you lichification, you'll have to find a way to un-lich yourself

Tyger
2007-07-20, 08:23 AM
By the way, I find it kind of interesting that you gave a page number without actually quoting anything...

Because rules of posting here specifically prohibit posting non-OGL stuff. For the record, the heading of the section on that page is "Good Liches". It provides rules for playing good liches, gives examples of what sorts of circumstances might exist that could result in a good lich (which closely parallel some of the "absurdly contrived circumstances" previously posted by others here), and modifies the powers and disadvantages of the lich to accommodate the good alignment. I can't say anything more without violating both copyright, the OGL and the rules of posting on this forum.

Now we're just running in circles. There's little to no point discussing this further because we're not talking about the same things. One side is saying its not RAW per Core rules, the other is saying that it is RAW per some rules published by WotC. No similar ground, we're not even talking about the same things.

Sure. Its not core. Sure, you can run it that way. I'll go the other route. Let's just agree that we're looking at it from two different positions and let it go at that.

lord_khaine
2007-07-20, 08:24 AM
no Jayabalard, what you dont seem to get, is that libris mortis, (who btw whatever people says, is RAW) says that there are exceptions to the the rule that liches become evil.
look its quite easy, rule 1) says that becomming a lich turns you evil, rule " says that there are rare exceptions to rule 1).

and its not something that require more DM permission than actualy becomming a lich, since that isnt a standart class either.

and since Libris Mortis isnt open source its a bit hard to quote from it.

Jayabalard
2007-07-20, 08:29 AM
Should the now-lichified character decide not to roleplay his evil alignment, I'd personally feel that being poor roleplay on the players part. Of course, no one says you have to be a megalomanical mass-murderer just because your evil and even evil characters have things they care about. You're just, well, evil which is undisputable.
The price of immortality, in the case of the lich, is an evil alignment, not to mention eternal damnation of your immortal soul and other such side-effects. If the player actively tries to become good as soon as (s)he gained the template, I'd say someone was abusing the system and if I had a player who planned out beforehand the Helm Of Opposite Alignment plan or similiar, I'd most likely veto it on the grounds of aggravating metagaming and technicality-abuse.

In short: Taking a template, any template, and actively trying to lose the 'disadvantages' it imparts on you is simply 'not cricket', as the saying goes.
If you want to become good after you lichification, you'll have to find a way to un-lich yourselfagreed... you don't have to be a megalomanical mass-murderer. Much better would be working toward some technically "good" ends while using totally ruthless and evil means. Even better if the "good lich" doesn't realize how evil he's actually acting; he's got his noble goals of bringing peace and order to the world and "sometimes you've got to break a few million eggs to make an omelet". He can remain blind to the fact that he's still be purely evil.

the helm of opposite alignment workaround ... like I said above, if you come up with it strictly OOC, that's just metagaming; if you come up with it IC, your character isn't actually willing to live with the consequences of his actions, and the ritual to become a lich fails.

Tyger
2007-07-20, 08:31 AM
agreed... you don't have to be a megalomanical mass-murderer. Much better would be working toward some technically "good" ends while using totally ruthless and evil means. Even better if the "good lich" doesn't realize how evil he's actually acting; he's got his noble goals of bringing peace and order to the world and "sometimes you've got to break a few million eggs to make an omelet". He can remain blind to the fact that he's still be purely evil.

the helm of opposite alignment workaround ... like I said above, if you come up with it strictly OOC, that's just metagaming; if you come up with it IC, your character isn't actually willing to live with the consequences of his actions, and the ritual to become a lich fails.

Great interpretation. Go with it. Sounds fun.:smallwink:

Driderman
2007-07-20, 09:01 AM
Trying to workaround the disadvantages of lichdom is, in my opinion, like the proverbial deal with the Devil: You might think you have it figured it but there's always a catch that gets you in the end. Thats the price for such Unspeakable Acts Of Evil.

Ruerl
2007-07-20, 09:19 AM
*sigh*

Why are people here so insisting on ignoring some basic facts of the system?

If its a written rule, even if its a variant rule, its still a rule that is written down, and as such RAW, everything else is just semantics and arguing how you want your game to work, it just does'nt change anything on the RAW.

Tyger
2007-07-20, 09:22 AM
*sigh*

Why are people here so insisting on ignoring some basic facts of the system?

If its a written rule, even if its a variant rule, its still a rule that is written down, and as such RAW, everything else is just semantics and arguing how you want your game to work, it just does'nt change anything on the RAW.

I've been asking the same question for 5 pages. You won't get an answer. Well, you'll get a lot of hyperbole, and a whole lot of opinion, but no one will answer that one fundamental question. I've all but given up on that. Don't get drawn in. :smallsmile:

Driderman
2007-07-20, 09:39 AM
*sigh*

Why are people here so insisting on ignoring some basic facts of the system?

If its a written rule, even if its a variant rule, its still a rule that is written down, and as such RAW, everything else is just semantics and arguing how you want your game to work, it just does'nt change anything on the RAW.

Well, roleplayers are notorious for being anti-authoritarian, fond of house-rules and of arguing semantics so that might explain it.
Personally, I don't really think the rules should get in the way of my interpretaion of the game or how I play it, but of course then my own views don't really apply to arguing facts if they don't coincide with the facts of what is written.
Another problem is that RAW is contradictory and very much subjective depending on what books you own. There's bound to be a book somewhere which states the opposite of what another book says is fact. For example, the Libris Mortis versus the Monster Manual.

On an entirely different, pedantic note: You are placing your apostrophes the wrong place. It's doesn't, not does'nt. No offense meant, of course, I have just noticed it a couple of times

mudbunny
2007-07-20, 09:40 AM
*sigh*

Why are people here so insisting on ignoring some basic facts of the system?

If its a written rule, even if its a variant rule, its still a rule that is written down, and as such RAW, everything else is just semantics and arguing how you want your game to work, it just does'nt change anything on the RAW.

You know, I thought about the question, I really did. And here is why *I* don't consider anything outside of Core as RAW.

First and foremost, for me, RAW implies the rules that everyone has to have to play, if they want to be considered as playing the very basic D&D game. Everyone needs to have the PHB, and the DM also needs to have the DMG and the MM.

Beyond those three (also including the SRD, which is a mash of the three put together), everything else is a variant, or optional rules.

Secondly, it is a standard concept of D&D that the core books trump all rules-wise. If you alter those, even if you are using variants put out by WotC, than you are playing a homebrew.

Third, when talking about RAW, we have to ensure that there is consistancy. If I have just the Core and am talking about the RAW, and someone else has Core plus all of the Completes, plus all of the environmental and race splatbooks, our RAW will be different.

Tyger
2007-07-20, 09:48 AM
You know, I thought about the question, I really did. And here is why *I* don't consider anything outside of Core as RAW.

First and foremost, for me, RAW implies the rules that everyone has to have to play, if they want to be considered as playing the very basic D&D game. Everyone needs to have the PHB, and the DM also needs to have the DMG and the MM.

Beyond those three (also including the SRD, which is a mash of the three put together), everything else is a variant, or optional rules.

Secondly, it is a standard concept of D&D that the core books trump all rules-wise. If you alter those, even if you are using variants put out by WotC, than you are playing a homebrew.

Third, when talking about RAW, we have to ensure that there is consistancy. If I have just the Core and am talking about the RAW, and someone else has Core plus all of the Completes, plus all of the environmental and race splatbooks, our RAW will be different.

And that's great. But that's a difference of opinion on what constitutes RAW. And that's not the overall topic here. I think along the same lines, for what its worth. Our group has the rule that if no one in the group owns the book, then we don't use those rules. (Un)fortunately we're a pretty book hungry group, and I can't think of a single WotC 3.5 book that we don't have between us. :)

To me, what you are describing is CORE vs. RAW. And that's groovy too. But again, not the basis upon which I am discussing the matter. I'd agree completely that RAW based only on CORE would be all but impossible to play a good lich.

Though I would disagree with the Core trumps all others suggestion. That's your opinion, and you are free to use it in yoru game, but in my game, stuff that comes out later is more likely to trump Core. After all, when Core was written they didn't have the ideas for the follow up books. Thus, the newer version, IN MY GAME, trumps the older stuff. But maybe thats just my training coming to the fore. Newer beats older any day. :smallsmile:

Jayabalard
2007-07-20, 10:04 AM
*sigh*

Why are people here so insisting on ignoring some basic facts of the system?

If its a written rule, even if its a variant rule, its still a rule that is written down, and as such RAW, everything else is just semantics and arguing how you want your game to work, it just does'nt change anything on the RAW.because
Any "but the RAW says XXX" arguments are irrelevant. The only thing that is meaningful to discuss are opinions and interpretations.

Rules in Libris Mortis are not "basic facts of the system". They're Variant rules and options of the system. As with all D&D rules, they are less important than the way the people actually play the game (RAI, interpretations, etc).

Some people consider the Rules themselves to be the game. Others people consider them nothing but a framework that is useful to let them play what they consider to be the actual game. Most people are somewhere in between. Asserting "this is RAW" when you're in a mixed environment is useless; it's not relevant unless you're in an environment made up strictly of the "RAW is the game" group, which is obviously not the case here.

Tyger
2007-07-20, 10:15 AM
Jayabalard,

Good points. But saying "No you can't do that, the rules don't let you" means you are arguing rules. Not how you play your game, not how you interpret them, nothing like that.

For the record, I may be arguing in favor of the RAW here, but I am most certainly not in the "Rules are the Game" camp. The rules provide a basic framework for what we want to do in our fantasy world. That's it. The OP asked if it was possible, and if his framework for the idea was feasible. And the answer to that, per RAW, is yes. The answer to "should I do it" is a different matter.

giblina
2007-07-20, 10:31 AM
Actually, the OP just asked how to deal with it... if he should allow the process as written in the SRD, or if he should turn it into a savage species type progression to account for the +4 LA.

mudbunny
2007-07-20, 10:33 AM
Actually, the OP just asked how to deal with it... if he should allow the process as written in the SRD, or if he should turn it into a savage species type progression to account for the +4 LA.

And then, as is wont to happen in teh intarweb, thread-drift happened.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-07-20, 10:45 AM
So, I have a player who's starting to express interest in becoming a Lich. I'm eying up that +4 LA, and an idea is starting to come to me as to how to deal with gaining it in play.


I'm envisioning a psuedo-prestige class, which is actually a set of templates, allowing you to level up with the rest of your party, eventually ending up as a fully blown lich, without your ECL ever exceeding that of anyone else at the table.

Fluff wise, I envision this as the evil magics taking a while to permeate your now dead body, and the decay of your once mortal flesh similarly not being instant.


Currently, I'm thinking something along the lines of

LA +1 mini-lich template: Lose your con score. Gain undead traits. All hit dice you have worse than a d6 are replaced with a d6.

LA +2 mini-lich template: As above, except all hit dice you have worse than a d8 are replaced by a d8. Gain DR 5 bludgeoning or magic. Gains negative energy touch attack as per a Lich, but without chance of paralysis.

LA +3 mini-lich template: As above, except all hit dice you have worse than a d10 are replaced by a d10. DR improves to 10/bludgeon or magic. Gains Fear Aura, as per a Lich.

LA +4 full Lich template, as usual.

Once you've started the process by qualifying for Lichhood in the usual way, you're unable to take any class levels until you've qualified for the full Lich template.

The only problem I forsee is the paperwork in rerolling your hit dice all the damn time. As my campaign has everyone taking average HP rather than rolling, this shouldn't be a problem, but without this house rule it gets ugly.

I can't see any other problems with this idea, the abilities feel spread out in such a way that the player undergoing the transformation doesn't get bored every time the party levels and the rest of the group don't feel slighted that someone shot out 3 ECL ahead of them for a while. But I freely admit to not being uber experienced- Any comments on unforseen consequences I might not be noticing?

What I'm worried about are the hit dice balancing factors. A high level wizard is likely to have most of his HP coming from a Con bonus (unless the player was deadset on playing a lich from the start and put an 8 in Con). Let's take a level 12 Wizard, with a Con bonus of 18-20 (thanks to an amulet of health). That makes an average (with max HP at lvl 1) of: 31 HP from d4s + 48-60 HP from Con = 79-91 HP total. At level 13, they take the +1 version of the template: Their HP takes a huge hit, especially since their HD didn't increase, but especially because of the lack of Con bonus: 44 HP from dice. That's a HUGE and dangerous hit to HP. In fact, other than becoming undead (and getting some bonuses and some penalties for being undead), the first +1 LA gives NO extras at all. It just takes away alot of HP in exchange for no longer healing by (+) energy and being immune to mind-affecting, plus destruction at 0 HP instead of -10. You should definately add some bonus/benefit to the first 'level'.

Driderman
2007-07-20, 11:02 AM
Don't forget that the Lich has its phylactery at LA+1 already, so while he takes a big hit to HP he's also effectively immortal unless someone finds the phylactery

SpikeFightwicky
2007-07-20, 11:10 AM
Don't forget that the Lich has its phylactery at LA+1 already, so while he takes a big hit to HP he's also effectively immortal unless someone finds the phylactery

True, but then he's out for 1d10 days... If I were a player in that game, I wouldn't want to wait an average of 5-6 days between every encounter so that McLichalot can reform (and with 44 HP at level 13, you are likely to get smoked very often).

lord_khaine
2007-07-20, 11:11 AM
must admit as understand it you dont get immortal before you have taken all 4 lvs of the template.

and yes, the first couple of lvs with the template he will have allmost no HP, so maybe a option would be to allow him to "save" a few lvups, so he can take 2-3 lvs in the template at once, instead of dying to the first the best fireball.

Dausuul
2007-07-20, 11:18 AM
What I'm worried about are the hit dice balancing factors. A high level wizard is likely to have most of his HP coming from a Con bonus (unless the player was deadset on playing a lich from the start and put an 8 in Con). Let's take a level 12 Wizard, with a Con bonus of 18-20 (thanks to an amulet of health). That makes an average (with max HP at lvl 1) of: 31 HP from d4s + 48-60 HP from Con = 79-91 HP total. At level 13, they take the +1 version of the template: Their HP takes a huge hit, especially since their HD didn't increase, but especially because of the lack of Con bonus: 44 HP from dice. That's a HUGE and dangerous hit to HP. In fact, other than becoming undead (and getting some bonuses and some penalties for being undead), the first +1 LA gives NO extras at all. It just takes away alot of HP in exchange for no longer healing by (+) energy and being immune to mind-affecting, plus destruction at 0 HP instead of -10. You should definately add some bonus/benefit to the first 'level'.

I agree. Whenever you become undead, you should get the full d12 Hit Die to compensate for your loss of hit points from Con.

Ruerl
2007-07-20, 04:35 PM
*rubs his small hands together gleefully*

Ah, now we are getting to an interesting discussion, are the lich transition class balanced at all?

Personally i'd say "no" with capital letters, a lich gets:
+5 natural armour
a touch attack that can paralyze.
a fear aura
+4 turn resistance
damage reduction
undead immunities
ability increases: +2 int, +2 wis, +2 cha
Phylactory

And of those what are actually usefull for the lich as a player character? I'd put it as follows:

+5 natural armour
a touch attack that can paralyze.
a fear aura
+4 turn resistance
damage reduction
undead immunities
ability increases: +2 int, +2 wis, +2 cha
Phylactory

The natural armour is mostly against someone hitting you close up -why are you letting that happen as a spellcaster?

The fear aura? Its against level 5 or below characters and as such utterly useless, you are a level 11 spellcaster minimum, level 5 characters did'nt bother you in the first place.

The paralyzing touch? -Are you actually attacking with your fists instead of casting spells?

Turn resistance - so now you are turned as a person at your own ECL? Mediocre useability at best.

Damage reduction - okay, this is a very good ability, magic and bludgoening is always nice.

Undead immunities - loss of hitpoints if you have a high con, gain of hitpoints if you have a low con, weakness to healing spells -do not let that paladin touch you, your dust the second that happens, if a paladin your own level with a charisma of 16 hits you, thats 33 points of damage, provided your level 11, and its very likedly to be a lot more, okay, so the undead immunities are worth a bit, not no more than you actually give away.

Ability increases: meh, somewhat usefull, but not that powerfull, certainly not more than at most one ECL.

Phylactory: Now we are talking, this is easedly worth an ECL all by itself, perhaps more.

Basic line? I'd give the Lich an ECL of +3, since it has three worthwhile ECL counting abilities: damage reduction, ability increases and phylactory, the rest of the abilities are ranging from "meh" to worthless in my book.

EDIT:
@Driderman:
Feel free to correct my grammar any time you wish, I only learn when corrected, and well, english is'nt my primary language.
-Just don't try to teach me that "armour" is spelled withouth a "u" I prefer british english to silly american english ;)

mostlyharmful
2007-07-20, 05:20 PM
I would like to pointout that there is no real in game benefit to being one alignlment over anouther. that there is no inherent bonus for being lawful/good/lawful/parmisan. If you want to play a lich that everyone who meets them tries to kill them that's your own business (I've done it and it's really fun and challenging).

Alignment and its consequences are applied in game, according ot the DMs idea of allignment, and carried on by the player in the vague hope that they might rise above the miasma of predictability into the heady white hazy of kick-assness!

Dausuul
2007-07-20, 05:47 PM
The natural armour is mostly against someone hitting you close up -why are you letting that happen as a spellcaster?

Only if you regard yourself as being a full arcane caster. A lich is actually more of a gish.


The fear aura? Its against level 5 or below characters and as such utterly useless, you are a level 11 spellcaster minimum, level 5 characters did'nt bother you in the first place.

Agreed, fear aura is worthless.


The paralyzing touch? -Are you actually attacking with your fists instead of casting spells?

If you're playing a sorceror lich? Hell yeah. It's a save-or-die that you can cast at will, all frickin' day, and the save DC scales with your level. And thanks to your natural armor and your crazy DR, you can actually wade into melee without too much trouble. Just buff yourself with transformation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transformation.htm) first.


Turn resistance - so now you are turned as a person at your own ECL? Mediocre useability at best.

Yeah, not much to be said about this.


Damage reduction - okay, this is a very good ability, magic and bludgoening is always nice.

Indeed. The bludgeoning is actually more useful than the magic. Again--gish.


Undead immunities - loss of hitpoints if you have a high con, gain of hitpoints if you have a low con, weakness to healing spells -do not let that paladin touch you, your dust the second that happens, if a paladin your own level with a charisma of 16 hits you, thats 33 points of damage, provided your level 11, and its very likedly to be a lot more, okay, so the undead immunities are worth a bit, not no more than you actually give away.

Huh? Undead immunities rule. No crits, no sneak attack, immunity to mind-affecting stuff, poison, petrification, you name it. The main drawback to undeath is usually loss of hit points; but you'd need a Con of at least 20 to lose out in that regard, since all of your measly d4 wizard Hit Dice turn into d12s.


Ability increases: meh, somewhat usefull, but not that powerfull, certainly not more than at most one ECL.

Agreed, this is just a minor bonus.


Phylactory: Now we are talking, this is easedly worth an ECL all by itself, perhaps more.

Actually, I think the phylactery is overrated. Think about it. When your character dies, what normally happens? That's right--either you get raised, or you come back next week with a new character of the same level. Either way, you don't really lose much. Phylacteries kick ass from the character's point of view, but from the player's? Eh.

Overall, I'd say the lich template is worth LA +2 or +3. Certainly not +4.

Ruerl
2007-07-20, 06:22 PM
Only if you regard yourself as being a full arcane caster. A lich is actually more of a gish.

I am unfamiliar with the gish term, please elaborate.
On a sidenote, I always consider myself more a caster than anything else when playing well, a caster, I do so from the belief that my caster levels always will be more powerfull than anything I could ever hope to achieve in mellee.


Huh? Undead immunities rule. No crits, no sneak attack, immunity to mind-affecting stuff, poison, petrification, you name it. The main drawback to undeath is usually loss of hit points; but you'd need a Con of at least 20 to lose out in that regard, since all of your measly d4 wizard Hit Dice turn into d12s.

You also lose all bonuses to your fortitude save wich is a real drawback, that disintigrate spell just got a whole lot more harmfull to you for instance, a normal mage with say a con of 16 your level will have a decent chance of saving against the spell, you facing just a level 11 caster with an int of 18 and no spell focus will have to roll 17+ to stay "alive" -unless offcourse you have items to help your save bonus.

All in all, save-or-lose fortitude effects suddenly got a lot more deadly to you, no to be honest, becoming an undead creature in itself is'nt even worth a single +1 ECL.


Actually, I think the phylactery is overrated. Think about it. When your character dies, what normally happens? That's right--either you get raised, or you come back next week with a new character of the same level. Either way, you don't really lose much. Phylacteries kick ass from the character's point of view, but from the player's? Eh.

I'm actually willing to pay the ECL for the coolness factor alone of the phylactory, but then again, my regulair DM tends to be much harsher on death, ressurections does'nt "just occur" in his worlds, we level up very slowly and he has changed the raise dead spells to "you always lose a point of constitution" add to this that he's fond of giving us mediocre stat bonuses at best and you have a very lethal world, especially since he likes to overpower his NPC's slightly.

Not that this makes him a bad GM, I throughoutly enjoy playing with him, but he does'nt do it as "standard" D&D does things, in fact he believes that a level 15 wizard-turned lich is a fair encounter for a party of four players level 8 and below with three or more ECL levels (a unique campaign he runs -every player where to take at least three ECL levels at the beginning of the campaign, did not matter in what, but it did mean that our "core" levels where 8 or less when we faced a level 15 caster turned lich -fair challenge? -only because he buildt the lich in a hideously ineffective way).

Regards

Lars

Dausuul
2007-07-20, 07:13 PM
I am unfamiliar with the gish term, please elaborate.
On a sidenote, I always consider myself more a caster than anything else when playing well, a caster, I do so from the belief that my caster levels always will be more powerfull than anything I could ever hope to achieve in mellee.

A gish is a combination fighter/caster. Liches are well-suited to this role. Start by buffing yourself. Engage the enemy at range with offensive spells. Then cast transformation and close to finish them off hand-to-hand with your paralyzing touch.


You also lose all bonuses to your fortitude save wich is a real drawback, that disintigrate spell just got a whole lot more harmfull to you for instance, a normal mage with say a con of 16 your level will have a decent chance of saving against the spell, you facing just a level 11 caster with an int of 18 and no spell focus will have to roll 17+ to stay "alive" -unless offcourse you have items to help your save bonus.

Yeah, but 99% of the stuff you'd normally have to make Fort saves against, you're immune to. Disintegrate is pretty much the only Fort-based attack you have to fear. Just pick up a ring of counterspells and you're set.

Randalor
2007-07-20, 08:19 PM
Just because I like poking land mines that may or may not be duds...

The requirement for becoming a lich requires an "unspeakable" act. So far, I've heard some pretty twisted things that are still considered "speakable"... but when all's said and done, if no one was there to see the act, wouldn't that make it unspeakable? I mean, the lich could always lie about what he did...

"So how did you become a lich"
"I planted an underground wheat field with self-sustaining ultraviolet magical lanterns for a famine-struck dwarven community secre... I mean... I slaughtered over a million peasents and bathed in their blood... yeah..."
"... Wow... that's pretty evil"

horseboy
2007-07-20, 11:39 PM
Wow, after reading this thread I'm so glad I don't pay Hasbro for their slip shod crap. To keep from violating copyright, does the "good" "lich" still require an unspeakable evil act?

Tyger
2007-07-21, 05:24 AM
Wow, after reading this thread I'm so glad I don't pay Hasbro for their slip shod crap. To keep from violating copyright, does the "good" "lich" still require an unspeakable evil act?

It doesn't specify. One would assume no. But that would be completely and utterly DM call.

lord_khaine
2007-07-21, 06:03 AM
ill just like to point out as well, that good liches isnt anything new hasbro has addet, they have been there as far back as 2nd edition.

Ruerl
2007-07-21, 06:09 AM
Yeah, but 99% of the stuff you'd normally have to make Fort saves against, you're immune to. Disintegrate is pretty much the only Fort-based attack you have to fear. Just pick up a ring of counterspells and you're set.

And flesh to stone, and gust of wind and temporal stasis, the biggest weakness are all the healing based effects though and there a lot of those around that will more or less one-shot a lich.

And now a sidenote on lich destruction: back in AD&D my favorite method was to simply cast "Reincarnation" or "ressurection" was rather funny as the "the soul must be willing" clause did'nt exist back then, ah the days of meeting the lich again as a goblin...
Not that it actually happened more than once and I was'nt even the caster who came up with the idea, but I still loved the expression on my GM's face, a mixture of suprise and an urge to laugh.


Wow, after reading this thread I'm so glad I don't pay Hasbro for their slip shod crap. To keep from violating copyright, does the "good" "lich" still require an unspeakable evil act?

That would depend if the lich started out as a normal lich and became a good lich afterwards or not I guess, in either case its not written down so i'd assume its a DM call.

mostlyharmful
2007-07-21, 07:14 AM
The lich template is eminantly achievable in game without destabilizing the campaign, the most powerful stuff they get (phylactery and undead immunities) are defensive so the DM can account for it by arming up the NPCs to fight that type of character.

The PC then gets xp on the basis of a character FOUR levels higher than the rest of the team and the rest of the team can level up to match in relatively short order if the DM uses low level threats for the Lich and high level threats for the rest of the PCs.

Caelestion
2007-07-21, 12:37 PM
TO CAELESTION: Darth Vader. Spike from Buffy. Gollum in LoTR (until he goes back to evil anyway). Scrooge. Severus Snape (I hope!). Spawn. Hawkeye (of the Avengers). The list goes on and on. My personal favorite I can't even remember the name. From the Cold Fire series. Borderline demonic lord who sacrificed his whole family to attain immortality. Main antagonist for the first two books. Becomes the hero at the end of the third... damn I wish I could remember the name! Gerald Tarrant? Something like that.
Considering I was the one who asked about characters who "pervert all the natural laws", I think it's only fair that I also answer.

Darth Vader is utterly evil until he achieves redemption through death.
Spike is not good-aligned. At best, he's neutral who does good things to impress Buffy.
Gollum is never good-aligned. He's just intimidated into non-evil actions and by trying to impress Frodo and reclaim the ring. After all, biting people's fingers off is the new "good".
Severus Snape is not a perversion of all natural laws. You must have been reading some freaky Harry Potter fan fiction.
Ebenezer Scrooge is also not a perversion etc. I have no idea what copy of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol you've been reading, but it's nothing like the book I know.

I have no idea about the other three, but I did say "a perversion of all natural laws". That's a fairly narrow category.

Yakk
2007-07-21, 04:28 PM
Actually, I think the phylactery is overrated. Think about it. When your character dies, what normally happens? That's right--either you get raised, or you come back next week with a new character of the same level. Either way, you don't really lose much. Phylacteries kick ass from the character's point of view, but from the player's? Eh.

Overall, I'd say the lich template is worth LA +2 or +3. Certainly not +4.

Laugh, someone has been playing the Muchkin card game, where being dead is usually far worse for you than losing your magical items. :)

Tor the Fallen
2007-07-21, 05:54 PM
Book of Exhalted Deeds has rules for Deathless, which are "good undead."

Also, has anyone else noticed that Neutral players tend to get screwed in most D&D crunch? Why is there no Paladin of Balance? It'd sound like a good Jedi-like idea to me.

Druids.

Paladins, regardless of alignment, are screwed by crunch.


[edit]
How can you 'pervert natural laws' when negative energy is an inherent part of the universe? It's like declaring electrons are a perversion, a quantum blasphemy, befouling the Good Works of Newton and Plato.

Neek
2007-07-21, 06:25 PM
[edit]
How can you 'pervert natural laws' when negative energy is an inherent part of the universe? It's like declaring electrons are a perversion, a quantum blasphemy, befouling the Good Works of Newton and Plato.

Electrons aren't a perversion. But when you start linking electrons to neutrons and have the protons orbit the electron-neutron core, you're doing something wrong.

horseboy
2007-07-21, 08:28 PM
It doesn't specify. One would assume no. But that would be completely and utterly DM call.

So it was just a "oh, btw, liches can be good now." kinda thing? No wonder everybody's confused.

Caelestion
2007-07-21, 08:31 PM
How can you 'pervert natural laws' when negative energy is an inherent part of the universe? It's like declaring electrons are a perversion, a quantum blasphemy, befouling the Good Works of Newton and Plato.
When you're talking about taking a normal living body and flushing it with negative energy so that you resemble a House of the Living Dead extra, except with less skin, simply so that you can attain eternal unlife, I'd call that a perversion of natural laws, even if negative energy has a place in planar laws.

PlasticSoldier
2007-07-21, 08:37 PM
Fugue plane
character min
What?

Amphimir Míriel
2007-07-22, 03:50 PM
But there are lawful good liches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baelnorn) (in Forgotten Realms).


Forgotten Realms is the campaign setting for people who hate boundaries :)

It's the home of Spellfire and good dark elves and every other mess of a concept out there.

I'm pretty sure the campaign designers sit around, furrow their eyebrows, and write down a list of every tried and true D&D concept so they can pervert it.

I'm not trying to knock the campaign setting, but rather say please don't hold up anything that comes out of Forgotten Realms as an argument of what the rules are supposed to allow :smalltongue:

If you were ever in your adventures to meet a lawful good half-fiend liche paladin who absorbs magic and poops flowers, Faerun is the place you'd meet them.

Exactly!

Sorry, but there are so many things wrong with Forgotten Realms that Baelorns just fade into the background :smallwink:

I mean, c'mon! Elves with such hubris that they want to extend their already too-long lifespans to keep an eye on their descendants or other assorted interests, by means of becoming unnatural negative energy-driven corpses... yet they somehow remain good!

...but since this is the land of Elminster and good Drow, its all good fun

sorry to add to an already too long discussion, but I just had to bash FR once again! :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2007-07-24, 07:45 PM
Laugh, someone has been playing the Muchkin card game, where being dead is usually far worse for you than losing your magical items. :)

Other way round, isn't it?

Arbitrarity
2007-07-24, 08:30 PM
Exactly!

Sorry, but there are so many things wrong with Forgotten Realms that Baelorns just fade into the background :smallwink:

I mean, c'mon! Elves with such hubris that they want to extend their already too-long lifespans to keep an eye on their descendants or other assorted interests, by means of becoming unnatural negative energy-driven corpses... yet they somehow remain good!

...but since this is the land of Elminster and good Drow, its all good fun

sorry to add to an already too long discussion, but I just had to bash FR once again! :smallbiggrin:

Teechnically, IIRC, Baelnorns use positive energy.

Caelestion
2007-07-25, 05:06 AM
Well, technically of course, they are undead, but Baelnorns debuted in 3rd Ed in 3.0, before the concept of Deathless.

Yakk
2007-07-25, 11:54 AM
Other way round, isn't it?

Yep, sorry.

...

Note that being lich-like is not "a lich".

Also note that the various undead suppliments mention the problem that intelligent undead have is that they cannot change their outlook from that at the moment they become undead -- they lack life, and life allows change. For a Lich, the moment you become undead consists of performing an unspeakably evil ritual.

So maybe you intend to want to change, but you'll always decide to do it later.

lukelightning
2007-07-25, 12:17 PM
I am just anti-good-lich for the same reason I am anti-good-vampire, anti-good-demon, anti-good-werewolf, and anti-good-mindflayer. These things are just so cliche. They are no longer something special that are astounding surprises to make a story/game interesting; they are just lame and predictable.

If you could become a vampire or lich or other undead without your entire personality and self being re-written into a horrible evil being, then why not just turn everyone into vampires and have a utopia world of powerful ageless people who don't need to eat and are immune to disease and other hardships?

The quest for immortal life is a classic example of how good people become evil. It can be seen as the ultimate selfish act: you prolong your life by upsetting the balance of the universe and laws of Life and Death.

Note: I'm not saying it is wrong to have good liches in your game. I am just saying "not in my game!" and expounding on my reasons why.

Zarrexaij
2007-07-25, 09:05 PM
I'm not going to argue over the schematics of the... well, paradox of a good-aligned lich, but I have this to say:

You may do as you want, but not in my campaign. There are no good-aligned undead. Period. At least, as far as I'm concerned in my game. Sure, I'll throw in exceptions to some "Always [x] Evil" that make sense (if they aren't outsiders, aren't undead, and they are sentient, then I rule that the 'always' part just means '99% are Evil and the 1% that isn't is probably neutral'). Of course, I make sure those are exceptions, not rules. But far as outsiders and beings whose existance is due to the manipulation of Negative (aka Unholy) energy, I rule this as DM: NO NO NO, THERE ARE NO GOOD [X UNDEAD HERE]!

If that's what you want to do in your game, that's fine. I have no problem with that. In my game, I do.

lukelightning
2007-07-26, 09:09 AM
Could you imagine if movies and other media were portrayed the way people play D&D?

Dracula:
Oh noes! Count Dracula is a vampire!
Hooray! He can bite us all and we can all become powerful vampires!

Star Wars:
Join the Dark Side and we can rule the galaxy!
Hooray! Let's all become sith!

Lord of the Rings:
The Ring of Power is Evil! You can't use it!
Yeah, whatever, I'll just convert to good afterwards, or put on a helm of opposite alignment.

Wolfwood2
2007-07-26, 10:07 AM
We are in the realm of RAW though.

We've established, per RAW, that your character becomes evil upon aquiring the lich template.

We've established, per RAW, that the DM is in control of alignment changes.

Therefore, if I say that a guilty lich who wants to redeem himself is a lame concept that will not be allowed, then I'm still completely within the RAW by doing so. Your character became evil when he became a lich, and I am the one who decides when and if it's possible to change that alignment. It becomes irrelevant that Libris Mortis has a good lich variant described, because I'm the one who gets to say, per RAW, whether your lich can become good or not (and I say no).

You make a lich in my campaign, he's permanently evil. I'll warn you of this before you undertake such a procedure, so there's not going to be any surprises for you, but that's the end of the story :smalltongue:

But frankly, so what?

A DM controls alignment changes, but a player controls the actual behavior of his PC.

If you allow me to make a lich in your campaign as a player character, then I get to decide how he acts and what he does. If his behavior isn't consistent with the alignment that the DM has declared for him, then that is in no way my problem. Especially for an arcane caster whose powers are pretty unrestricted by their alignment.

I'm frankly baffled why this discussion has focused so much on the alignment written on the top of the character sheet. If the DM wants to declare that the lich PC is forever treated by magical effects as evil, then that is probably a fair decision. So Holy Smite hurts the lich, he can't pick up a holy weapon without wincing, he gets funny looks form people using Detect Evil and so on and so on....

But. If the DM has allowed me to play a lich PC, then he is my character. I decide what he does, how he acts, and from what motivations. I can decide that he wants to help people for the sake of helping them, I can decide that he wants to act out of friendship, and I can decide that he wants to adventure to acquire treasure. The DM can dance around declaring 'Evil' all day long and that is his business, but what the PC says and does is my business.

Frankly, next to the social problems that arise from being a rotting corpse, the fact that you also detect as evil is pretty small beer.

lord_khaine
2007-07-26, 10:25 AM
yeah but in same same way that its weird when someone with the words LG run around setting fire to people and kicking pupies, without a chance to LE, then its also weird when someone with the words NE on their char sheet running around putting out fires and saving pupies.

really, the aligment should reflect the chars actions, not forcing them to act in any specific way.

lukelightning
2007-07-26, 11:26 AM
really, the aligment should reflect the chars actions, not forcing them to act in any specific way.

I would say that a lich merely existing is an evil act.

Wolfwood2
2007-07-26, 11:46 AM
I would say that a lich merely existing is an evil act.

Sounds like a good compromise.

The DM gets to have his always-evil alignment because the lich is doing evil merely by existing. Meanwhile the players gets to run his PC however he wants without worrying about the evil alignment because he's already fulfilling his evil quota just by existing.

Win-win.

mostlyharmful
2007-07-26, 12:40 PM
bizarre use of the word evil it seems :smallconfused: but ok, if what you do and say and think have no baring on your alignment in your game that's fine. And if a naturally occuring energy type is considered evil that is also fine. It leads to weird compromises down the line, good clerics can't use harm or inflict spells because they're evil, BBEG can't use cure or ressurection cause they're good, upstanding members of the community that pay taxes and give to charity drives get loony crusaders banging on the door because it's been thirty years since they last breathed in.... etc.....

Yakk
2007-07-26, 02:54 PM
*nod*, which is why if you are going to become a lich, the DM should either make sure you are capable of playing a soulless being of evil, or say "congradulations, you just created an NPC!"

Of course, this is all badfun stuff -- if you want to do an act of unspeakable evil, have your character justify it to yourself, and become a paragon of Munchkinkind, feel free. :) Just don't do it around me. ;)

Arbitrarity
2007-07-26, 03:29 PM
Munchkins don't play lichs. It violates two of the Commandments of Optimization.

Tor the Fallen
2007-07-26, 04:15 PM
When you're talking about taking a normal living body and flushing it with negative energy so that you resemble a House of the Living Dead extra, except with less skin, simply so that you can attain eternal unlife, I'd call that a perversion of natural laws, even if negative energy has a place in planar laws.

Wouldn't that be a perversion of 'Nature's' law, but not an actual perversion of The Natural Law, of which all things existing within the universe are part of?

Seems like a phrase one would expect a soiled druid to spout.

Tor the Fallen
2007-07-26, 04:17 PM
Could you imagine if movies and other media were portrayed the way people play D&D?

Dracula:
Oh noes! Count Dracula is a vampire!
Hooray! He can bite us all and we can all become powerful vampires!

Star Wars:
Join the Dark Side and we can rule the galaxy!
Hooray! Let's all become sith!

Lord of the Rings:
The Ring of Power is Evil! You can't use it!
Yeah, whatever, I'll just convert to good afterwards, or put on a helm of opposite alignment.

Hahaha, classic.

Yakk
2007-07-26, 04:21 PM
Munchkins don't play lichs. It violates two of the Commandments of Optimization.

/shrug -- become a lich in the campaign after you have reached the level cap. You now don't care about the LA. :)

mostlyharmful
2007-07-26, 04:24 PM
only if the campaign isn't going to last much longer, as you're now leveling up a LOT slower than your fellow min-maxers and will soon be out paced.:smallannoyed:

Jimmy Discordia
2007-07-26, 04:46 PM
A lot of things have been said here, so I'm just going to address specific points made without directly quoting earlier posts (or looking up who made those points), 'cos I'm lazy. Feel free to yell at me for misinterpreting the ideas of your camp.

I don't have Libris Mortis, and since we can't quote straight from non-OGL sources, I have no way of knowing exactly what it says about good liches. Regarding it being RAW: well, it is. It's the Rules, as they have been Written, by WotC. However, it's my understanding that it's completely optional, and that good liches are even more optional. I think the whole RAW argument was based around people confusing "RAW" and "Core." If you're not using Libris Mortis, then even though things in it are RAW, they don't matter, because they're not the rules you're using. If you're not using Core, you're not playing D&D.

This is not to say that an extensively house-ruled version of D&D with lots of homebrew stuff isn't D&D anymore. Far be it from me to tell you what to call the game you're playing. But if your variant isn't mostly based around the core books, my instinct is that it's not D&D anymore. All this is tangential, though. Technically, the entire discussion of argument about lich alignment is tangential to the OP, but it's fun to argue alignment, so I'm going to jump in on that particular tangent.

Of course, your DM can allow whatever he wants to allow. My personal take on this is that the "Act of Unspeakable Evil" required to become a lich is, basically, the act of severing your own soul from your body in exchange for immortality. In the 2E rules linked to above, you did have to do some pretty evil stuff, but nowadays the only requirements other than time + XP + gold are whatever the DM wants to impose on you. Personally, in a "good" campaign, I simply wouldn't allow my PCs to become liches without permanently becoming NPCs. I don't run pure-good campaigns so much anymore, but back when I did, any shift to an Evil alignment automatically made you an NPC. And I would say that the trauma of becoming a lich makes someone Evil from the word "go." If they're not willing to undergo the soul-damaging bits of the ritual, the ritual fails, and you end up with one dead spellcaster and one empty phylactery.

Redemption, however, is an entirely different story. As I've said above, the idea of a PC lich in a good campaign doesn't fly with me. But I would be willing to insert an NPC lich seeking redemption. Hell, I'd even let a PC play one, assuming that the campaign was starting out at a pretty high power level. In Nomine had some good stuff on Undead defecting to the cause of Heaven, if memory serves... they were especially tragic characters, because in that game becoming undead basically destroyed your soul, so they had no hope of ever actually going to Heaven (when killed, they would simply cease to exist). I like that kind of flavor for a good lich, but it would require some house-ruling. Perhaps willingly becoming undead damns your soul outright, but you can work for Good afterward if you want to, and even become Good... but when you die (and your phylactery is destroyed) you're permanently deaded. No true resurrection, no divine intervention, no popping up on the Upper Planes, just... gone.

However, as everyone's favorite ghost-martyr paladin once said, redemption is a rare and special thing. No one becomes a lich with the intention of seeking redemption later. Doing bad things now with the intention of repenting later is utterly self-serving, and in my book, not even close to Good, even if you had good reasons for doing them. This is why I wouldn't allow a good-aligned PC to become a lich, unless he really intended to become Evil (and yes, even if he intended on becoming the lesser of two evils). A redemption-seeking lich would have to have been a lich for quite some time, and for whatever reason seen the error of his ways. But then, I don't see channeling negative energy as forcing you to do Evil. Others do, so for them, no good liches. Full stop. For those who allow good liches, I think it's good to make them extremely rare, or even to just have one in the entire world.

...although I can see some potential in an Undead Anonymous group for "recovering" undead, I don't think it would work in a serious campaign. "Hi, my name is Bob, and I'm an unspeakable abomination and an utter perversion of the natural order." "Hi, Bob!"

Irreverent Fool
2007-07-26, 08:45 PM
Remember that drow are an accursed race. Their entire existance stems from their fall to darkness. I'd say they have an inherent thirst for evil, and the fact that they are basically a culture of sociopathic demon-worshipping murderers doesn't help matters.

So are humans.

Yakk
2007-07-26, 11:47 PM
only if the campaign isn't going to last much longer, as you're now leveling up a LOT slower than your fellow min-maxers and will soon be out paced.:smallannoyed:

Then die, and replace your character with one 1 level under your old one!

Bwhahahahaha ahum.

Tor the Fallen
2007-07-26, 11:50 PM
Then die, and replace your character with one 1 level under your old one!

Bwhahahahaha ahum.

Or resurrect yourself, gain two levels, and go back to being a lich.