I've always - even going back to 3.5 - assumed liches (and other intelligent undead such as vampires) gained the aging bonuses but didn't suffer the penalties. But then I went digging into the rules. And nothing about the undead type prevents aging - either bonuses or penalties.
So... does a lich gain bonuses and/or penalties from aging? I'm interested in opinions, certainly, but I'm especially interested in any rules quotes that would resolve the question.
Cheers!
I would think they don't. Age penalties to me seem to be a representation of how the mortal body deals with becoming more decrepit. Since Liches technically regenerate and live forever unless killed under certain circumstances, I don't think these penalties can bee added over time.
If the person who is being transformed into a Lich had the penalties beforehand while living though, I think they would be carried over when becoming a Lich.
Liches don't gain further age categories. It would defeat the purpose of becoming a lich.
Liches don't gain further age categories. It would defeat the purpose of becoming a lich.
I agree that's what it should be. But can you show me a rules quote that actually says that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
JJ just mentioned that they do not age, at least in Golarion.
I think this falls under the "we can't make rules for everything, use common sense" reason.
Liches don't gain further age categories. It would defeat the purpose of becoming a lich.I agree that's what it should be. But can you show me a rules quote that actually says that?
There is not a rule for everything. Ninja'd by Cheapy.
I always thought the bonuses to mental stats granted by the lich template was associated with age, as liches tend to be very old.
Templates give you certain bonuses just because you are creature X. You get them as soon as you get the template. If they were age based then it would say how many years it would take, and they would match the aging table exactly. If you compare the mental and physical changes to the chart they do not match up.
Yeah, I just thought it made logical sense when my GM told me this was the reason.
Still I got the bonuses when I made my character a lich that one time. And yeah I do think they should be added immediately.
Also I don't think a lich would age, but perhaps after enough time has passed a lich should get further bonuses to mental stats due to "life" experience?
People getting smarter/wiser with age is certainly not a biological thing, so I don't see any reason not to give a Lich the mental attribute bonuses associated with the age categories, without there being corresponding biological degradation.
Technically, people get dumber as they age, or at least their brains work more slowly, but it is to some degree compensated for by increased experience which gives them more and better heuristics for dealing with problems such that they can take mental "shortcuts" that younger people might not have the opportunity to take, partially bridging the gap. If you were magically protected from that type of degradation as well you might be even smarter in the long run since you'd have the benefit of both improved heuristics and no processing speed degradation.
Now, all that said, liches are still getting stat bonuses over time on merit of continuing to gain levels. If they focus on intellectual pursuits, they'll be putting their points in INT. If we were really concerned with staying true to real life, we'd remove the age category stat bonuses altogether, and simply say that if you spent your life focusing on mental tasks, you probably gained INT by way of stat increases as you gained levels. If you just sat on your duff and did nothing, or shoveled horse poop, there's no reason you would have been any smarter by the time you grow old and die.
In PF you just don't gain any further age categories because you are not getting closer to death which is what the age categories represent.
Two perspectives- Liches can age, and they can't. There is a specific "prestige class" for liches (I believe it's the Demi-Lich) which is based on the idea that as liches age, they gain more power until they degrade into gem-encrusted skulls.
Liches do not "age" physically as they don't have bodies, and I'm sure RAW does not have the undead age. However, it would make sense for the mental stats to continue to improve, as they represent learning and wisdom through age, which intelligent undead certainly gain the experience for. Likewise, since it has been established that the undead rot and degrade over time, this could be represented through a DR reduction based on brittle bleached bones or some such, or by simply following the ability score penalties for aging for the same reasons.
To sum up, Liches do not age, but they do rot and they do tend to acquire knowledge and wisdom over time. This could be seen as following the same basic mechanical processes as "aging", though I would place this curve on a longer lifespan (unlifespan?) over the course of centuries rather than decades.
*Puts on devil's advocate hat.*
No where does it say a lich doesn't suffer from the physical aging penalties, so they do (as is normal for their base race). They also gain the aging bonuses at the appropriate intervals.
On the other hand, there are plenty of sources that say liches decay over time, even sometimes becoming nothing more than powerful skulls. Sure sounds like growing old to me.
A human lich is still human and still has all the human traits, that includes bonus feat, bonus skill, and the aging rates (though the lich template clearly takes dying of old age off the table).
If a lich could die of old age (debatable) it would only reform in 1d10 days, making it a rather moot point.
The demilich is more of a "because the GM said so" than because the Lich is 10 or 1000 years old though.
If I achieve lichdom at the age of 18 I never really become venerable, which is basically pretty close to when I am about to die of natural causes.
In the game you get mentally better as you get closer to death, not due to the amount of years you have lived.
Now normally if you live longer you are closer to death, but liches never really have to deal with that, so from a mechanical point of view they don't age.
From a story point of view everyone ages, but that is different than changing age categories which is how the rules do it.
LOL. I finally watched part one of that movie. I then decided to not torture myself with the rest of them. I wanted to punch the vampire dude in the face for being so emo.
Do 18 year old liches sparkle?
So aging to the point of near-death automatically makes you smarter?
If you have no constitution score (which undead do not) you are dead (per core rule book description of constitution).
This statement is incorrect. If you have a Con score of 0, you are dead.
JJ just mentioned that they do not age, at least in Golarion.
Great - source? Link?
...
If a lich could die of old age (debatable) it would only reform in 1d10 days, making it a rather moot point.
Care to place bets on that? If I was in a bad mood... Death due to old age cannot be undone by any means from memory... I know that a True res is insufficient (Miracle might suffice, but is not listed as a specific). If you want to apply age bonuses to your lich, then you take the penalties... one of which is "You be perma-dead now." Either that or you die from old age, respawn, then immediately die of old age again because you have exceeded your max age, forcing a respawn... wash, rise, repeat.
No wonder liches are cranky. Having half a second alive every D10 days, then re-forming back in the same place every time.
Back to seriousness anyway...
I would say (based on nothing rules related) that they can advance, but being undead their age categories are obscenely large. Age cats appear to be based on your expected lifespan is. An elf will not get that +1 to Wis / Int until a couple of generations of humans have all died of old age with their +3s because elves live longer. Given that liches have a lifespan of near infinite, they would hit 'middle age' at around (near infinite)/2. Same logic applies to all undead (ghost etc) and would represent (in the case of a Lich) the devolution that begins it's steps towards becoming a demi-lich, which it may or may not do either as a part of 'Max age' or needs to do prior to 'max age' depending on the lich in question.
Rules lawyer answer?
State that the character age advancements specify that it is for characters, not Monsters. Liches (all undead actually) are a monster and as such therefore are ineligible for age advancements. The GM has recourse to apply the Young / Old templates as they see fit.
I'm going to play with Ravingdork, 'cause I think he makes an excellent Devil's Advocate on this one. :P
I propose that liches can continue to gain aging categories, but that they cannot die of old age. The reason I propose this is the undead type says they were once-living, and by having no Constitution score they are not alive. By not being alive, they cannot be made dead by aging penalties.
The undead type says they are immune to ability drain, energy drain, death effects, and immune to any ability damage that applies to their physical ability scores. Looking at the aging rules, the effect of aging is a penalty, because it is the effects detailed in the glossary under ability damage and penalties (penalties being ability damage that cannot reduce your ability scores below 1). Since liches are immune to ability score drain and damage, they are immune to the aging effects therein.
Finally, even if you manage to argue that they would take ability score penalties, it can't actually kill them, because you don't kill undead, you "destroy" them. Undead are not alive to be killed, and their creature type specifies that damage may destroy them, some effects may return them to life, and so forth. All effects related to the eradication of undead also use the term destroy, rather than kill.
Ergo, I'm pretty sure that liches do not die from old age, because they cannot die. They can only be destroyed. A destroyed lich reforms in 1d10 days. Likewise, since they cannot suffer the penalties for aging, their bodies remain intact, while their minds continue to grow. Thus a lich that is very old is physically about the same, but more dangerous because his mental ability scores likely have grown a bit; giving him more skills, knowledge, stronger spell DCs, and so forth.
Care to place bets on that? If I was in a bad mood... Death due to old age cannot be undone by any means from memory......
If a lich could die of old age (debatable) it would only reform in 1d10 days, making it a rather moot point.
Reincarnate.
For demiliches, they are not created by aging. They are created when a lich has lost the motivation to do anything in life. Yes folk, demiliches are the end result of a lich having an existential crisis :)
Citations, as per the usual
Bestiary 3, Page 67:
If during that time the lich’s remains are destroyed or scattered (for example, by wandering adventurers), the lich’s phylactery forms a new body and the intellect leaves the phylactery as normal, returning the lich to life. But if the lich’s remains survive unperturbed, the phylactery’s magic fails catastrophically, releasing the lich’s soul and causing 5d10 points of damage to the phylactery. Regardless of whether or not the phylactery physically survives, the energies released by its failure channel into the lifeless skull of the lich, allowing the last remnants of the lich’s soul to transform it into a demilich. The lich’s soul itself either is utterly destroyed, reaches its final reward or punishment, or is condemned to wander the edges of the multiverse forever.
Undead Revisited, Page 25-26:
So a demilich = a lich bored to death...again.
So a demilich = a lich bored to death...again.
Pretty much.
Now, as to whether or not the lich can or cannot age, there is some thing in its description that make me believe that it no long ages.
Bestiary 1, page 188
"the spellcaster gives up life, but in trapping life he also traps his death, and as long as his phylactery remains intact he can continue on in his research and work without fear of the passage of time."
The part about no fear of time makes me think that the creature no longer has to worry about aging or dying from old age. That's how I read it, anyways. Now, from Undead Revisited, I read this:
"Whether a wizard, a cleric, or another who has deliberately achieved undeath through one means or another, the lich is a creature held together by powerful magic. The magic of the lich staves off the effects of death and prevents the rotting of its flesh, but does little to protect the flesh from desiccation. Once the lich forsakes the pleasures of food and drink, its body loses the nourishment necessary to keep skin strong and supple, and soon the skin and muscles contract, snap, and wither. Fortunately, the lich does not need these to move; its flesh is mere decoration. Even when dealt a blow that would cripple a mortal, the lich has no fear of immobility, for its magical state keeps it fully ambulatory even on broken bones, as if its skeletal structure were held within a frame of invisible forces."
Reading this, I get the feeling that the magic that holds liches together prevents the flesh from being damaged by decay over time. Add in the fact that they are immortal, which to me means you stop aging, I'd say that they would not age.
However, it is left vague and I think it is good that they do. Why? Well, it leaves it up to the GM to decide if lichdom is truly worth immortality. But, I'd say that they probably can't age.
Related question: Liches are traditionally described as skeletal, but Arazni is depicted as having pretty much all of her skin and muscles intact. Is this a difference in Golarion Liches, or is she a special type of Lich?
I think I would have an amulet of gentle repose made before I became a lich. Maybe some undead regeneration type thing thrown in. I don't wanna be skeletor.
Related question: Liches are traditionally described as skeletal, but Arazni is depicted as having pretty much all of her skin and muscles intact. Is this a difference in Golarion Liches, or is she a special type of Lich?
Intelligent undead regenerate their bodies like living creatures do. They have natural healing, which implies that holes get patched up, broken bones get mended, torn muscles grow back together, and so forth. If their bodies are constantly regenerating, and not subject to the withering and decay of aging, why would they lack their skin and muscle and other features of a strong, healthy body?
Another example, see vampires. Vampires are also intelligent undead and thus ave natural healing (they actually even have fast healing), and have bodies which appear alive, and are often described as attractive to living creatures.
Even zombies don't truly rot, because rotting would cause their body damage as it broke down and was consumed by bacteria and the elements. Zombies however are unaffected by such things, and can stand guard inside of ancient, damp, moldy tombs, more or less indefinitely.
The only reason that a lich would appear as a skeleton would be if it desired so.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
The only reason that a lich would appear as a skeleton would be if it desired so.
The only reason we liches do ANYTHING is because we desire to do so. We appear as we wish to appear. We act as we wish to act. You mortals should not question our motives. We are beyond your puny concepts of morality and perception.
Related question: Liches are traditionally described as skeletal, but Arazni is depicted as having pretty much all of her skin and muscles intact. Is this a difference in Golarion Liches, or is she a special type of Lich?Intelligent undead regenerate their bodies like living creatures do. They have natural healing, which implies that holes get patched up, broken bones get mended, torn muscles grow back together, and so forth. If their bodies are constantly regenerating, and not subject to the withering and decay of aging, why would they lack their skin and muscle and other features of a strong, healthy body?
Another example, see vampires. Vampires are also intelligent undead and thus ave natural healing (they actually even have fast healing), and have bodies which appear alive, and are often described as attractive to living creatures.
Even zombies don't truly rot, because rotting would cause their body damage as it broke down and was consumed by bacteria and the elements. Zombies however are unaffected by such things, and can stand guard inside of ancient, damp, moldy tombs, more or less indefinitely.
The only reason that a lich would appear as a skeleton would be if it desired so.
I know that in Undead Revisited, it says that many a lich will forsake nutrition and that's where his skeletal form comes from. I suppose if you keep eating your greens and meats, you'll look as pretty and fit as the Harlot Queen herself.
Now I'm imagining the new lich diet crazy...
I know that in Undead Revisited, it says that many a lich will forsake nutrition and that's where his skeletal form comes from. I suppose if you keep eating your greens and meats, you'll look as pretty and fit as the Harlot Queen herself.
Now I'm imagining the new lich diet crazy...
I don't see much point in it. You have to eat to gain the energy and components for your body to regenerate. Undead do not. Undead are powered by negative energy, and Intelligent undead seem to rebuild their bodies by virtue of this energy. Their natural healing and regeneration is not tied to their consumption of food, which leads me to believe that it would continue to rebuild their bodies even without eating.
There is an obvious suggestion that energy can be converted into matter without the need for consumption in D&D/Pathfinder. By casting a healing spell on someone, you mend their wounds and regenerate their bodies, but it doesn't appear to deprive them of bodily resources as if it were just stimulating their natural healing. If it did, the more magical healing you received the hungrier you would be, as your body would have to rapidly metabolize new nutrients to replace what was being consumed.
Undead do not have to eat at all, and their natural healing progresses. Living creatures slowly start, which causes them to take damage that cannot be healed by their natural healing, which represents their natural healing giving out in face of starvation. Undead do not have this problem.
I think the reason why people hate undead so much is jealousy. Undead are just strait up superior to their living counterparts, in the sense that they are effectively immortal unless slain, immune to disease, don't get tired, don't need to eat, etc. A community of undead would actually be the least devastating civilization on a planet to the environment, because they could exist without being a drain on the environment.
A city of 10,000 humans, dwarfs, and elves needs a lot of food (animals, plants, fish, whatever). A city of 10,000 wights, mummies, and liches do not. :P
Ah, see the thing that had me confused is that Liches are listed as having DR 15/bludgeoning and magic. Traditionally, DR with a vulnerability to bludgeoning damage is a trait of skeletal undead, while more fleshy undead like zombies don't have it. I can totally see a technicality though where a lich is technically just the animated bones, but nothing is stopping a lich from keeping/caring for the flesh that surrounds the bones, even if they aren't *using* their muscles to move. Thus, shooting them with an arrow or slashing them with a sword is ineffective, even if they look like they have skin.
As for the eco-friendliness of an undead nation, I thought wights ate living people, kinda like zombies? I guess that could be more of a flavor thing than a rules thing...I know Geb has to keep a farm of living thralls to feed to the mindless undead (and some of the intelligent undead, like the vampires). So they'd have to farm traditional food to feed their "livestock".
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I think the reason why people hate undead so much is jealousy. Undead are just strait up superior to their living counterparts, in the sense that they are effectively immortal unless slain, immune to disease, don't get tired, don't need to eat, etc. A community of undead would actually be the least devastating civilization on a planet to the environment, because they could exist without being a drain on the environment.
A city of 10,000 humans, dwarfs, and elves needs a lot of food (animals, plants, fish,...
This is true. You are all jealous of our superiority.
Liches have been going green for centuries! All of our enemies become fertilizer for the soil...
Ah, see the thing that had me confused is that Liches are listed as having DR 15/bludgeoning and magic. Traditionally, DR with a vulnerability to bludgeoning damage is a trait of skeletal undead, while more fleshy undead like zombies don't have it. I can totally see a technicality though where a lich is technically just the animated bones, but nothing is stopping a lich from keeping/caring for the flesh that surrounds the bones, even if they aren't *using* their muscles to move. Thus, shooting them with an arrow or slashing them with a sword is ineffective, even if they look like they have skin.
As for the eco-friendliness of an undead nation, I thought wights ate living people, kinda like zombies? I guess that could be more of a flavor thing than a rules thing...I know Geb has to keep a farm of living thralls to feed to the mindless undead (and some of the intelligent undead, like the vampires). So they'd have to farm traditional food to feed their "livestock".
Zombies don't eat people. They have no need of it. They cannot decide to do stuff on their own. They could be ordered to eat people, but D&D zombies are not the same as "science fiction zombies" who spread plague through biting people and then eating the victims that don't get away. Even plague zombies don't work like that (they spread disease by hitting them with natural weapons, which is generally a slam attack for humanoid zombies).
Wights also don't eat people, but they can inflict negative levels with their attacks. Wights are also intelligent, and may be animated without being evil, according to their fluff (in fact, a Paladin who suffers a violent death could return as a wight based on their fluff).
Ghouls eat meat. People meat is optional. Ghouls don't need to eat meat however, so it's a hunger that you could give into, but you don't actually need to eat at all. Ghouls could easily eat things like non-sentient animals, like rats, cows, goats, and things living creatures eat.
Geb is an a nation of evil undead because it's an evil nation of undead, not because it's a nation of undead. :P
This is true. You are all jealous of our superiority.
Liches have been going green for centuries! All of our enemies become fertilizer for the soil...
I like this guy. Count me among your allies, and should my time come, bring me back as a ghast or wight or something. I could use the spare time, sleepless days, and lack of wasted time crapping, to do something cool like cure cancer.
If I were a powerful vampire I'd invest in a ring of sustenance and a ring of regeneration. Then I'd find the tastiest morsel I could, put the two rings on him/her, then put them in a portable hole with a bottle of air. Voa loia! (spelling?) never go hungry again.
If I were a powerful vampire I'd invest in a ring of sustenance and a ring of regeneration. Then I'd find the tastiest morsel I could, put the two rings on him/her, then put them in a portable hole with a bottle of air. Voa loia! (spelling?) never go hungry again.
Interestingly, a Ring of Sustenance would still be useful to some undead. Theoretically, it could stop the hunger of undead like Ghouls. More certainly, it would allow liches and undead spellcasters to re-prepare spells faster.
On a side note, the idea of "donors" is entirely possible. Magic is also the universal method for fixing problems. Simulacrum is an excellent method for creating creatures to feed to certain undead. A troll simulacrum can be used to feed ghouls and vampires more or less indefinitely, thanks to its regeneration abilities.
I've had liches with intact "fleshy" bodies in my game for a long time. Since a powerful ego is central to most liches, it stands to reason that the most powerful liches have taken steps to ensure that their bodies remained intact. Each lich has his/her own specific steps that have been taken to become a lich and I envision that the skeletal husk look is what results when shortcuts have been taken.
Well, like I said earlier their DR implies that they are, in truth, skeletal undead. But considering the level of arcane power necessary to become a lich, it would be trivial to use some sort of alter self or polymorph spell to look however they'd like. Presumably this would address the stench issue as well.
I've had liches with intact "fleshy" bodies in my game for a long time. Since a powerful ego is central to most liches, it stands to reason that the most powerful liches have taken steps to ensure that their bodies remained intact. Each lich has his/her own specific steps that have been taken to become a lich and I envision that the skeletal husk look is what results when shortcuts have been taken.Well, like I said earlier their DR implies that they are, in truth, skeletal undead. But considering the level of arcane power necessary to become a lich, it would be trivial to use some sort of alter self or polymorph spell to look however they'd like. Presumably this would address the stench issue as well.
The only reason they would stink is if they would rot. Their bodies don't rot, so therefor a lich that baths shouldn't smell bad. In fact, it's likely they don't even have body odor or pheromone funk to deal with. :P