Making a living phylactery.

[Tainted_Scholar]

So, I want to make a lich's phylactery a thinking creature. I'm going to explain specifically what I'm planning on doing with it, in order to help.

Basically the lich in question is a sick dastard, who's cares less about keeping his phylactery safe as he does about tormenting people. So, upon creating the phylactery, he makes it sentient, and mind rapes it so that it is the sweetest, purest, person possible. Firmly good aligned, and very kind. And so it doesn't know that it's a phylactery.

So, if the Players want to destroy the lich, they have to kill an innocent being. I'd also planned on making it look cute, maybe like a child, to make the whole situation even worse.

Also, if possible, I'd like to make it so that the phylactery cannot self terminate. So, even if it wanted to sacrifice itself for the greater good, it can't do it itself. For even more emotional trauma.

Finally, I'd like to do this all with pre-existing rules. I really don't like house ruling things for these type of situations. I kind of feel like it's cheating.

[flappeercraft]

Cast Dispel Magic on the phylactery which disables it for 1d4 rounds, then cast Minor Servitor (SS). Alternatively there was an archive on the wizards website where you could copy someones personality into a gem temporarily that can be used to make into a magic item which both makes the magic item intelligent with that personality and have it permanently rather than for the duration of the spell. Currently I’m not at home so I can’t get the bookmark to post the link but I believe it was called Nybor’s Psychic Imprint or something like that.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Cast Dispel Magic on the phylactery which disables it for 1d4 rounds, then cast Minor Servitor (SS). Alternatively there was an archive on the wizards website where you could copy someones personality into a gem temporarily that can be used to make into a magic item which both makes the magic item intelligent with that personality and have it permanently rather than for the duration of the spell. Currently I’m not at home so I can’t get the bookmark to post the link but I believe it was called Nybor’s Psychic Imprint or something like that.

I believe this is a link to the spell in question. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20041215a)

[Florian]

Ok, cool, it´s alive. Smite it and be done with it.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Ok, cool, it´s alive. Smite it and be done with it.

What sort of evil monster would smite such a pure innocent little cinnamon bun!? :smalltongue:

[Crake]

If we're at a level where the BBEG is tossing around 9th level spells, the party should have similar access to such magic. The simple solution is to simply kill the phylactery, and then just cast resurrection on them, since the "magic item" portion of them is destroyed, and resurrecting them shouldn't fix that.

[torrasque666]

If we're at a level where the BBEG is tossing around 9th level spells, the party should have similar access to such magic. The simple solution is to simply kill the phylactery, and then just cast resurrection on them, since the "magic item" portion of them is destroyed, and resurrecting them shouldn't fix that.
Wonderful, you've killed something without a soul, and therefore no soul to resurrect.

[Menzath]

Well, making the phylactery into a golem of quartz, crystal, Ruby, emerald, or a carytid column and then use a ritual to apply incarnate construct to it. Instant living phylactery. PAO and mindrape to 🖤's content.

Also a list of where the heck some of those even are.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?195438-All-the-Different-Types-of-Golems-Redux

[Feantar]

Well, making the phylactery into a golem of quartz, crystal, Ruby, emerald, or a carytid column and then use a ritual to apply incarnate construct to it. Instant living phylactery. PAO and mindrape to 🖤's content.

Also a list of where the heck some of those even are.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?195438-All-the-Different-Types-of-Golems-Redux

The only problem with this is whether you think the phylactery property is a special quality. If it is, you just destroyed your phylactery, as incarnate construct removes special qualities.

[Vaern]

Also, if possible, I'd like to make it so that the phylactery cannot self terminate. So, even if it wanted to sacrifice itself for the greater good, it can't do it itself. For even more emotional trauma.
Use a compulsion effect to force the unwitting phylactery to seek out and destroy the lich's phylactery. Perhaps create a magic item that you put on the creature before turning it into a phylactery and wiping its memory, possibly cursed so it can't be disposed of... or, better yet, the phylactery technically is a magic item, so it would be within reason to add the cost of a continuous dominate person effect to the crafting cost of the phylactery.

Most compulsions prevent the target from doing anything obviously suicidal. For example, dominate person states quite explicitly that, "obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out." If the lich commands his phylactery to destroy itself, the phylactery will not do it because it would be a self-destructive order. If the phylactery genuinely wants to die to rid the world of the lich, it will be unable to do so because that would be obeying a self-destructive order which the spell explicitly says will not be carried out.

[masamune1]

So, you want a Voldemort / Nagini thing to go on, huh?

Well, then the question I've thought of in that series applies here- can the living phylactery die accidentally, or of old age etc?

I imagine that's the reason that living phylacteries are not so commonplace.

[Ashtagon]

The thing is, to take down a regular phylactery, you don't "kill" it, you "destroy" it.

So you can't merely kill this sweet innocent childphylactery, you have to destroy it. What does "destroy" mean when it looks like a sweet innocent child? Possibly a bit messy.

I don't play games where a phylactery has been made to look like a sweet innocent child.

[Falontani]

Make the kid have been in the dungeon for several weeks. Let him know the layout other than secret doors. All the monsters have been commanded to act like the child isn't there unless it starts to harm them, then play fight with the child and send it running. The kid doesn't know where the phylactery is, doesn't know where anything hidden is, and thinks he's the best rogue!

[ColorBlindNinja]

If we're at a level where the BBEG is tossing around 9th level spells, the party should have similar access to such magic. The simple solution is to simply kill the phylactery, and then just cast resurrection on them, since the "magic item" portion of them is destroyed, and resurrecting them shouldn't fix that.

Presumably, the PCs aren't intended to confront the BBEG until they're higher level.

[Menzath]

The only problem with this is whether you think the phylactery property is a special quality. If it is, you just destroyed your phylactery, as incarnate construct removes special qualities.

Well, caryatid columns actually have mental attributes, so you could have one get trained and have a level of monk. The phylactery item quality would then transfer over just fine as long as it retains that monk level.

Also creature special qualities =/= item properties imo. But either way this workaround should do.

[Tainted_Scholar]

If we're at a level where the BBEG is tossing around 9th level spells, the party should have similar access to such magic. The simple solution is to simply kill the phylactery, and then just cast resurrection on them, since the "magic item" portion of them is destroyed, and resurrecting them shouldn't fix that.

True, perhaps the lich used a scroll of Mind Rape instead of casting it them self. They could also be higher level than the PCs, since they are the Final Boss.

[masamune1]

Again, I'm still wondering why the advantage is to having a phylactery that can potentially die of illness, injury or old age, and possibly even kill itself if it figures out that it's mere existence keeps an evil Lich alive.

Non-living objects tend to be chosen because they last a very long time, are portable and can be hidden wherever you like. Living beings are harder to control and usually more vulnerable.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Again, I'm still wondering why the advantage is to having a phylactery that can potentially die of illness, injury or old age, and possibly even kill itself if it figures out that it's mere existence keeps an evil Lich alive.

Non-living objects tend to be chosen because they last a very long time, are portable and can be hidden wherever you like. Living beings are harder to control and usually more vulnerable.

The lich mostly created a living phylactery because they're a ****. They're evil for the entertainment value. Think Joker from The Dark Knight, they probably have a similar level of concern for their own well being too.

Also, the phylactery is probably going to be a construct of some type, so I don't have to worry about it dying of old age.

[Lapak]

What sort of evil monster would smite such a pure innocent little cinnamon bun!? :smalltongue:
And this right here is why no evil lich would do such a thing: the majority of an evil lich's enemies are not do-gooders. They are rivals, competitors, middle-of-the-road folks who it has somehow wronged, etc. By making your phylactery a living being - and an innocent, vulnerable being at that! - you have made yourself INCREDIBLY vulnerable to people who are like yourself, and you are going to get destroyed yourself in a matter of weeks.

[ColorBlindNinja]

And this right here is why no evil lich would do such a thing: the majority of an evil lich's enemies are not do-gooders. They are rivals, competitors, middle-of-the-road folks who it has somehow wronged, etc. By making your phylactery a living being - and an innocent, vulnerable being at that! - you have made yourself INCREDIBLY vulnerable to people who are like yourself, and you are going to get destroyed yourself in a matter of weeks.

Actually, that does raise an interesting question. Is there anything to stop a Lich from making more than one Phylactery?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Actually, that does raise an interesting question. Is there anything to stop a Lich from making more than one Phylactery?
Yes. Libris Mortis 151. A phylactery is a unique Tiny object with hardness 20 and 40 hp, covered in or containing some sort of arcane inscription. It may not be part of a magic item, nor have other magic properties built into it. Within those restrictions, nothing says it can't be a (part of a) creature.

I suggest... uhh, rather, an incredibly evil demon would suggest that you take a Tiny creature onto a timeless plane, cast delay death on it, cut open its chest, scoop out the insides, carve the inscription on the inside of the ribcage (performing all the necessary item crafting while the spell lasts, which is forever due to the timeless plane), put the insides back in, stick its head into a bucket of water until it hits 0 hp, take it to the Material Plane, wipe its memories, heal it up to 1 hp, and send it on its merry way.

Of course, this does depend on the ruling that a creature's ribcage is an object (albeit one you do not have line of effect to) while the creature is alive. I haven't thought about this long enough to definitively say that sort of thinking doesn't break a lot of things elsewhere. Use with caution.

[unseenmage]

If the phylactery counts as a magic item apply Intelligent Magic Item rules.

Now it's technically a Construct so you can Incarnate Construct it if it's of Humanoid shape or permanently Greater Humanoid Essence it with a custom magic item.

Viola. Living Phylactery.
Some GM permissions required.


Alternatively, make it out of Livewood with a dryad and attached and Mindrape/Shapechange the Dryad as needed.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yes. Libris Mortis 151. A phylactery is a unique Tiny object with hardness 20 and 40 hp, covered in or containing some sort of arcane inscription. It may not be part of a magic item, nor have other magic properties built into it.

Ah, okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

[Oko and Qailee]

So, if the Players want to destroy the lich, they have to kill an innocent being. I'd also planned on making it look cute, maybe like a child, to make the whole situation even worse.


Having been in a campaign where this happened, I STRONGLY recommend against this for multiple reasons.

1) It's horribly overdone, though this isn't as important.

2) It's not as interesting as you think it is. A lot of DMs try to do this as some sort of "interesting moral choice" thing, when it isn't actually at all. There's only two possible outcomes.

Either the DM allows the party to find another way to remove the phylactery effect, which means a good party will absolutely attempt to commit to this route every time (and less good aligned parties wont care, making the entire choice not actually something they bother to think about) OR the DM doesn't allow any way to bypass the phylactery, in which case there is no actual choice, the kid absolutely must be killed.

3) It doesn't feel good for most players who are invested in good aligned characters. This is especially true if there is no actual choice to be made. It's just a "haha, you have to kill a child or the Lich wins". It's obnoxious because it only exists to create a situation for their characters to feel bad.

[ColorBlindNinja]

3) It doesn't feel good for most players who are invested in good aligned characters. This is especially true if there is no actual choice to be made. It's just a "haha, you have to kill a child or the Lich wins". It's obnoxious because it only exists to create a situation for their characters to feel bad.

Isn't there a Paladin Prestige Class called Hunter of the Dead that can kill Liches without destroying their Phylacteries?

Also, there are other ways of stopping the Lich without killing it, aren't there? Imprisonment, for example?

[Oko and Qailee]

Isn't there a Paladin Prestige Class called Hunter of the Dead that can kill Liches without destroying their Phylacteries?

Also, there are other ways of stopping the Lich without killing it, aren't there? Imprisonment, for example?

Maybe? But that just goes back to my point above that, that it's not actually an interesting choice. If there are ways to stop it, neutral/good aligned characters will nearly always do it.


The point is the choice isn't really made by the players, it's made by the DM. It's the DM choosing "will I make it feasibly possible for my players to keep the kid alive or will I force them to kill a child to kill a lich."

I've seen this scenario played out 100 times and it is the same every single time. It's a terrible trope that seems to always be used by DMs to get players to kill a child and then they giggle at how they think they made the player make a difficult moral choice, when they never had a choice to begin with.

[Crake]

Wonderful, you've killed something without a soul, and therefore no soul to resurrect.

If it never had a soul, then there was never a dilemma in killing it, since it's not really alive, any more than a simulacrum is alive.


True, perhaps the lich used a scroll of Mind Rape instead of casting it them self. They could also be higher level than the PCs, since they are the Final Boss.

True, but resurrection is two spell levels lower than mind rape, and raise dead and revivify two below that, so they should be easily within the party's capability if the BBEG is throwing around mind rape, even from a scroll.


Presumably, the PCs aren't intended to confront the BBEG until they're higher level.

Well, if the party has access to the lich's phylactery, then by pretty much all means they are directly confronting the lich.

[hamishspence]

If it never had a soul, then there was never a dilemma in killing it, since it's not really alive, any more than a simulacrum is alive.


Them having sapience may be more important to the average player than them having (or not having) a soul. Like in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:

"When a man dies, doesn't shock me too much; we get death sentences day we are born. But Mike was unique and no reason not to be immortal. Never mind "souls" - prove Mike did not have one. And if no soul, so much worse. No? Think twice."

[Malphegor]

One way to do it (since the phylactery is by RAW I think a small trinket) is to steal from the folklore liches come from- Koschei’s phylactery was a needle in an egg in a duck in a rabbit. The living parts of those would flee if found, taking the needle with them.

So make your phylactery tiny- like a speck of bone encased in lead a 1mm thick or smaller blob. Then you need to find your target and implant it into them.

That way you don’t need some new form of phylactery creation, just make it small enough the host creature carries it (maybe hollow out their jawbone then heal around the jawbone?)

[Crake]

Them having sapience may be more important to the average player than them having (or not having) a soul. Like in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:

"When a man dies, doesn't shock me too much; we get death sentences day we are born. But Mike was unique and no reason not to be immortal. Never mind "souls" - prove Mike did not have one. And if no soul, so much worse. No? Think twice."

Well that's the thing, in some settings, or by some DM's interpretation, sapience requires a soul. Any "sapience" without a soul, isn't really sapient.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Well, if the party has access to the lich's phylactery, then by pretty much all means they are directly confronting the lich.

You're assuming they realize that it's a Phylactery and that they know who's Phylactery it is.

To use an analogy, Bilbo had the One Ring for years and he never realized it's true significance or directly confronted Sauron.

[Remuko]

Maybe? But that just goes back to my point above that, that it's not actually an interesting choice. If there are ways to stop it, neutral/good aligned characters will nearly always do it.


The point is the choice isn't really made by the players, it's made by the DM. It's the DM choosing "will I make it feasibly possible for my players to keep the kid alive or will I force them to kill a child to kill a lich."

I've seen this scenario played out 100 times and it is the same every single time. It's a terrible trope that seems to always be used by DMs to get players to kill a child and then they giggle at how they think they made the player make a difficult moral choice, when they never had a choice to begin with.

So what if the player didnt have to make a difficult moral choice? The character may still need to. There not being a choice, if they want to kill the lich permanently creates Drama. It makes the character (again the players thoughts dont matter, the roleplay of the character does) think about the "greater good" and how far theyre willing to go to stop the Lich etc. I don't see anything wrong with it unless its being forced on a Paladin or the like just to maliciously be like "haha you fall!". A good person can do something "evil" like this and still be good because they dont have the restrictions a paladin does, but its still for most good-aligned characters going to be an internal struggle, and this is only if/when they even find out the innocent being IS the phylactery.

[Andezzar]

The lich mostly created a living phylactery because they're a ****. They're evil for the entertainment value. Think Joker from The Dark Knight, they probably have a similar level of concern for their own well being too.
Chaotic stupid people do not live long enough to become a lich.

[PrismCat21]

I've seen this scenario played out 100 times and it is the same every single time. It's a terrible trope that seems to always be used by DMs to get players to kill a child and then they giggle at how they think they made the player make a difficult moral choice, when they never had a choice to begin with.

Sounds like you may need to find different groups to play with. Or maybe a different DM who puts actual thought into a game...

[unseenmage]

One of the biggest hurdles I see is that morality and characterizations hinged thereupon does not equal alignment.

Alignment is a tangible part of the existence the character interacts with, like magic and matter.

Morality is a construct of our world that we use because we dont have physical manifestations of good and evil law and chaos literally a magic phone call away to tell us what to do.


More simply, alignment is a game rules element. Morality is a character interaction element that must, because of player autonomy, remain unfettered by the rules of the rules.
Mixing alignment and morality together is less like chocolate and peanut butter and more like napalm and radioactive waste.

I dont think the characters making the hard choice to do bad or do evil isnt a rewarding game goal, I just think it'd have to be handled awfully carefully due to the disparate dichotomy of doing evil vs doing wrong and all the misconceptions inherent in such.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Chaotic stupid people do not live long enough to become a lich.

Why does having a living Phylactery make the Lich stupid?

Even if his Phylactery is destroyed, someone still has to kill the Lich for it to matter. And he can always make a new one.

[Andezzar]

Why does having a living Phylactery make the Lich stupid?Trying to make a living phylactery isn't stupid in itself, but making it a little girl just to cause more suffering is.


Even if his Phylactery is destroyed, someone still has to kill the Lich for it to matter. And he can always make a new one.The book of bad latin says he can't:

A lich can construct only a single phylactery. A lich whose phylactery is destroyed suffers no harm, but cannot construct a new one.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Trying to make a living phylactery isn't stupid in itself, but making it a little girl just to cause more suffering is.

Perhaps.


The book of bad latin says he can't:

Why wasn't that line in the Monster Manual?! Seriously, that's a very important detail to omit!

:smallsigh:

[hamishspence]

The Aumvor's Fragmented Phylactery epic spell does allow you to have multiple phylacteries, all of which must be destroyed to enable you to be killed permanently.

And it can be cast repeatedly, on any of the duplicates - you don't need to keep casting it on the original.

[Andezzar]

The Aumvor's Fragmented Phylactery epic spell does allow you to have multiple phylacteries, all of which must be destroyed to enable you to be killed permanently.

And it can be cast repeatedly, on any of the duplicates - you don't need to keep casting it on the original.Epic spellcasting....

[ColorBlindNinja]

The Aumvor's Fragmented Phylactery epic spell does allow you to have multiple phylacteries, all of which must be destroyed to enable you to be killed permanently.

And it can be cast repeatedly, on any of the duplicates - you don't need to keep casting it on the original.

What book is that spell from?

EDIT: Looks like Champions of Ruin?

[Tainted_Scholar]

Well that's the thing, in some settings, or by some DM's interpretation, sapience requires a soul. Any "sapience" without a soul, isn't really sapient.

I'd assume that sapience doesn't require a soul. In fact, I'm pretty sure there are already sapient beings in D&D that don't have souls.


Trying to make a living phylactery isn't stupid in itself, but making it a little girl just to cause more suffering is.

Well, he's not going to leave it completely unguarded. The phylactery will probably be locked in a castle, guarded by one of his top minions or something. Also, since living phylacteries aren't exactly common, it might make it harder for his enemies to figure out that the small child is in fact a phylactery.

But I am completely aware that this idea is highly impractical.


The book of bad latin says he can't:

Huh, I wasn't aware of that.

[ColorBlindNinja]

To be sure, a Lich can keep himself from dying even if his Phylactery has been destroyed.

Hide Life, Astral Projection, damage immunity, ect.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Maybe? But that just goes back to my point above that, that it's not actually an interesting choice. If there are ways to stop it, neutral/good aligned characters will nearly always do it.

I personally would never include a third option to kill the lich while still saving the phylactery. However, if the players found a third option by themselves, then I would be more than willing to let them do that.

So, while I would never present the players with a ritual that would remove the phylactery properties from the child, if a player found a ritual that removes the phylactery proprieties from an object in a splat book or something, then I'd be happy to let them do that.

[Florian]

What sort of evil monster would smite such a pure innocent little cinnamon bun!? :smalltongue:

It´s a phylactery. It houses the soul of a Lich and basically radiates evil, so the question is more who falls for that ruse?

[ColorBlindNinja]

It´s a phylactery. It houses the soul of a Lich and basically radiates evil, so the question is more who falls for that ruse?

So, it's evil and good at the same time? It's Succubus Paladin all over again! :smallsmile:

[Crake]

I'd assume that sapience doesn't require a soul. In fact, I'm pretty sure there are already sapient beings in D&D that don't have souls.

That just brings about the metaphysical discussion about true sapience vs the appearance of sapience. Where is the line between something that emulates near-sapience, vs something that is truly sapient. I would be intrigued about what exactly you're referencing though, that's sapient without a soul. Even something like polymorph any objecting a rock into a human gives it a soul, at least temporarily, since the human can be killed and resurrected while the spell persists.

[ColorBlindNinja]

That just brings about the metaphysical discussion about true sapience vs the appearance of sapience. Where is the line between something that emulates near-sapience, vs something that is truly sapient. I would be intrigued about what exactly you're referencing though, that's sapient without a soul. Even something like polymorph any objecting a rock into a human gives it a soul, at least temporarily, since the human can be killed and resurrected while the spell persists.

Worth noting that Outsiders and Elementals don't have souls in the traditional sense in D&D.

[hamishspence]

True Resurrection works on Outsiders and Elementals. I don't think it works on Constructs though. "Soulless but also free-willed and intelligent" might apply to a few constructs.

[ColorBlindNinja]

True Resurrection works on Outsiders and Elementals. I don't think it works on Constructs though. "Soulless but also free-willed and intelligent" might apply to a few constructs.

The spell description itself specifically says it doesn't work on Constructs.



This spell can also resurrect elementals or outsiders, but it can’t resurrect constructs or undead creatures.


Emphasis mine.

Miracle could debatably work:



Swinging the tide of a battle in your favor by raising fallen allies to continue fighting.


It doesn't specify what type of allies.

[hamishspence]

Complete Divine clarifies that the reason True Resurrection can resurrect Outsiders at all, is that their soul isn't destroyed when their body is slain (as is implied by the whole "soul and body is one unit" thing) -

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType

Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose.


it just dissolves rapidly into the plane, requiring the spell to sift through the material of the plane and reconstitute the soul.

[CIDE]

Unless I'm remembering incorrectly Warforged (allegedly) don't have souls at all and can still be raised. Are they not truly sapient by virtually every stretch of the imagination?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Unless I'm remembering incorrectly Warforged (allegedly) don't have souls at all and can still be raised. Are they not truly sapient by virtually every stretch of the imagination?

Well, they're Living Constructs and can thusly (IIRC) be raised from the dead.

EDIT: I see you already mentioned that. :smallredface: Pay no attention to me. :smallbiggrin: