What happens if a lich gets ressurected?

[Jamesason]

Hello, i wanted to know what would happen if a lich got resurrected in the method i'm about to say and if this is even possible(This is for D&D 3.5e): The Lich uses a wish spell to set a condition on themselves, so that the next time they "die" or get destroyed in battle they would get truly resurrected(via the True Resurrection spell). Would that work and if so, would that make the lich a living creature or let it stay as a lich. The phylactory still exists and is undamaged.

[magic9mushroom]

Hello, i wanted to know what would happen if a lich got resurrected in the method i'm about to say and if this is even possible(This is for D&D 3.5e): The Lich uses a wish spell to set a condition on themselves, so that the next time they "die" or get destroyed in battle they would get truly resurrected(via the True Resurrection spell). Would that work and if so, would that make the lich a living creature or let it stay as a lich. The phylactory still exists and is undamaged.

Wish can't duplicate True Resurrection, let alone set a contingent one. Pact of Return is similar, but very limited and still too high-level to be duplicated by Wish.

Monster Manual says that Resurrection can work on an undead creature and turns them back into the living creature they used to be. Assuming the lich is willing, they'd become living again (if they're not, it does nothing; hence, you can't use Resurrection to circumvent a lich's phylactery).

Limited Wish can bring an undead creature back (as undead).

[Jamesason]

Thank you magic9mushroom

[Jamesason]

Wish can't duplicate True Resurrection, let alone set a contingent one. Pact of Return is similar, but very limited and still too high-level to be duplicated by Wish.

Monster Manual says that Resurrection can work on an undead creature and turns them back into the living creature they used to be. Assuming the lich is willing, they'd become living again (if they're not, it does nothing; hence, you can't use Resurrection to circumvent a lich's phylactery).

Limited Wish can bring an undead creature back (as undead).

But can conditions still be made using wish? In general, not specifically for death

[Mike Miller]

But can conditions still be made using wish? In general, not specifically for death

Wish can duplicate lower level spells. Contingency is a spell. You can use wish in the form of a contingency. I would read both spells closely before trying to make too much happen, though. Just to be on the safe side...

[sleepyphoenixx]

I'd argue that the lich's soul being bound to its phylactery conflicts with the free part of the "free and willing to return" clause for resurrection spells even if it was willing.

That aside destroying an undead creature and resurrecting it explicitly brings them back alive, not undead.
Destroying the undead creature first is in fact necessary to resurrect someone who's been turned into one.


But can conditions still be made using wish? In general, not specifically for death
You can use Wish to duplicate the effects of Contingency, so yes. Anything beyond the scope of that is in the realm of DM fiat.

[Linearblade]

Wish can't duplicate True Resurrection, let alone set a contingent one. Pact of Return is similar, but very limited and still too high-level to be duplicated by Wish.

Monster Manual says that Resurrection can work on an undead creature and turns them back into the living creature they used to be. Assuming the lich is willing, they'd become living again (if they're not, it does nothing; hence, you can't use Resurrection to circumvent a lich's phylactery).

Limited Wish can bring an undead creature back (as undead).

Which is really too bad. Because resurrecting a Lich into a frail old man barely capable of walking would truly be hilarious

All those years spent learning / enacting his ritual down the drain.

And When he kills the PCs for their insolence, he’s like “ahh faak... I’ve got 3 days to live before I keel over and die”

Wow. What an awesome adventure hook that would be.

Your hired by a kindly old man with a curious haste in his desire to “find some things”

[Akkristor]

The creature must be willing, and the soul must also be free and available.


If the phylactery is intact, then the soul is likely not free and available, since the phylactery is created to contain the soul and prevent it from passing on.

So, if the Phylactery exists, I'd say the Lich does NOT get resurrected.

If the Phylactery has been destroyed or damaged to the point it can no longer hold the soul, then Lich is now de-Lich'd.


The question is now, do they revive at the age they were when they became a Lich (when they 'died'), or what age they would be now including time spent Lich-ified.

[KillianHawkeye]

The question is now, do they revive at the age they were when they became a Lich (when they 'died'), or what age they would be now including time spent Lich-ified.

The time spent dead doesn't normally count against you when you're brought back to life, so I don't expect the time spent undead should either.

[Clementx]

Monster Manual says that Resurrection can work on an undead creature and turns them back into the living creature they used to be. Assuming the lich is willing, they'd become living again (if they're not, it does nothing; hence, you can't use Resurrection to circumvent a lich's phylactery).
Incorrect. Resurrection or higher magic restores a destroyed undead creature back to its mortal form. A lich isn't destroyed when its body his 0hp unless its phylactery is destroyed. Some DM fiat is required to interrupt the normal regeneration process, because the base spells don't do that.

[Crake]

Incorrect. Resurrection or higher magic restores a destroyed undead creature back to its mortal form. A lich isn't destroyed when its body his 0hp unless its phylactery is destroyed. Some DM fiat is required to interrupt the normal regeneration process, because the base spells don't do that.

Reversal card: Undead type states "Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead." Nothing mentioned there about needing to be destroyed first.

The resurrection spell does state "You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed." These two statements don't seem to be mutually exclusive, so you could destroy an unwilling undead and then resurrect the willing soul, or you could just directly resurrect a willing undead straight into it's living form.

[RatElemental]

Reversal card: Undead type states "Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead." Nothing mentioned there about needing to be destroyed first.

The resurrection spell does state "You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed." These two statements don't seem to be mutually exclusive, so you could destroy an unwilling undead and then resurrect the willing soul, or you could just directly resurrect a willing undead straight into it's living form.

I think the fact that the target of resurrection and true resurrection currently has to be dead to be a valid target is where you get the "they have to be destroyed" bit. Dead is actually defined in the rules, and I don't think undead creatures fit the definition.

[Crake]

I think the fact that the target of resurrection and true resurrection currently has to be dead to be a valid target is where you get the "they have to be destroyed" bit. Dead is actually defined in the rules, and I don't think undead creatures fit the definition.

Undead type states otherwise, and specific trumps general.

[Segev]

Wish CAN duplicate Clone. So yes, that Wish seems viable. It’s essentially a reflavored Clone + a bit of extra benefit in that the body can’t rot or be destroyed because it doesn’t exist until needed.

[Crake]

Wish CAN duplicate Clone. So yes, that Wish seems viable. It’s essentially a reflavored Clone + a bit of extra benefit in that the body can’t rot or be destroyed because it doesn’t exist until needed.

The wish in the OP did specify true resurrection, presumably to avoid the level loss, so that doesn't quite fulfil the desires of the wish.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Undead type states otherwise, and specific trumps general.

I'd argue that the general rule would be the one from the Undead type with the spell descriptions of the various rez spells being the specific.
I can't see any interpretation where the type description would be more specific than the description of the spell in question.
And they don't really contradict each other anyway imo, the type description just leaves stuff out.

(True) Resurrection can revive an undead creature after it's been destroyed, which the spell specifies but the undead type description doesn't, but it also doesn't say otherwise.
As opposed to Raise Dead and Reincarnate which can never bring somebody back who's been turned into one, destroyed or not.

[Crake]

I'd argue that the general rule would be the one from the Undead type with the spell descriptions of the various rez spells being the specific.
I can't see any interpretation where the type description would be more specific than the description of the spell in question.
And they don't really contradict each other anyway imo, the type description just leaves stuff out.

(True) Resurrection can revive an undead creature after it's been destroyed, which the spell specifies but the undead type description doesn't, but it also doesn't say otherwise.
As opposed to Raise Dead and Reincarnate which can never bring somebody back who's been turned into one, destroyed or not.

The undead type states that the spells can affect undead creatures, that's about as clear cut as it gets.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The undead type states that the spells can affect undead creatures, that's about as clear cut as it gets.

And the spell descriptions for Resurrection and True Resurrection don't contradict that, they just add that the creature has to be destroyed first.

I don't see a conflict here, but if there was one i'd argue that the spell description is the more specific source than the type description in this case.

[Segev]

The wish in the OP did specify true resurrection, presumably to avoid the level loss, so that doesn't quite fulfil the desires of the wish.

True. You might be able to rules-lawyer it (and justify it in-game as the very smart lich enacting some specific ritual clauses or the like) as the "level loss" overlapping with the lost LA from going from Lich to Human (or whatever he was before). That is, "Oh, yeah, I lose a level due to clone. I am actually 4 levels lower than I was before, just from ceasing to be a lich, so that overlaps and I'm back where I started."

It's cheesy and probably won't fly if the DM is being strict, though.

If you're looking at Pathfinder, you can use Craft Wondrous Item to create a one-off resurrection sarcophogus, though. It can even have true resurrection as its effect, because you'll take advantage of the rules about not needing the spell for +5 to the spellcraft DC when making the item!

It's not a wish at that point, and is still very expensive (25,000 gp for the material component, plus 9*17*25 gp crafting cost...actually, the 3825 gp crafting cost is near-trivial if you're at an appropriate level to be considering de-lichifying yourself...). But it will do the job!

[magic9mushroom]

Incorrect. Resurrection or higher magic restores a destroyed undead creature back to its mortal form. A lich isn't destroyed when its body his 0hp unless its phylactery is destroyed. Some DM fiat is required to interrupt the normal regeneration process, because the base spells don't do that.

I said Monster Manual, dude.


Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.

In point of fact, for most undead the question is moot because the undead won't be willing, so you will indeed have to destroy them first.

Regarding which one trumps which... well, the golems getting affected differently by certain spells is generally considered to work, and that directly contradicts rather than just giving an alternate use. "Alternate use of specific spell on specific kind of creature" is legit IMO.

("undead creatures can't be resurrected" in the Resurrection spell is saying that a destroyed undead can't be brought back to being undead by Resurrection, which isn't contradicted by MM. To give the full sentence, "Constructs, elementals, outsiders and undead creatures can't be resurrected." - clearly, this is referring to killed/destroyed examples rather than the living/functioning ones.)