Can a Lich atone?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Buri wrote:
APs are written by writers, not devs.

The initial turn-over, yes. Though by and large the writers have a damn good grasp of the rules. Hell, the chapter I was talking about in the spoiler, CC Chapter 5, was written by Neil Spicer.

But AP chapters are also revised and edited by Paizo's developers before publication.

Now, mistakes still happen, because humans with deadlines.

@Shiney - It's cool. Your initial post may have been excessively combative, which may be why you're getting the responses that you are.


I personally would have made the path to lichdom more difficult, but in the end if a GM is allowing spellcraft and knowledge arcana checks to work then it works.

The atonement spell is for those that are sorry for their actions and the intent of Pathfinder is for you to intentionally to very bad things to become a lich so that is why a simple atonement spell would not work in my games. You might even die in the process.


Zhangar wrote:

The initial turn-over, yes. Though by and large the writers have a damn good grasp of the rules. Hell, the chapter I was talking about in the spoiler, CC Chapter 5, was written by Neil Spicer.

But AP chapters are also revised and edited by Paizo's developers before publication.

Now, mistakes still happen, because humans with deadlines.

Indeed. Even JJ has stated that a few things have gotten out he wished he'd have had time to catch as they set dangerous precedents or are simply wrong, wrong, wrong that he now has to figure out how to correct with more lore. As with any of the books, the APs are often rife with miscalculated HPs and the like also. It's a hard knock life... : /

Zhangar wrote:
@Shiney - It's cool. Your initial post may have been excessively combative, which may be why you're getting the responses that you are.

Yeah, the whole "suck it" thing got to me a bit.

Liberty's Edge

At any rate...a lich is not eligible for the spell...but if the dm wants it to happen... *shrug*.


Shiney wrote:

I just achieved lichdom in a campaign, and you want to know what I did? I amassed a great deal of wealth, material components, and spent a while in secluded research and work, to strip my soul out and stuff it in a box. No evil sacrifices, no misdeeds, no bargains with devils. mechanics wise, being undead, I was shifted to evil alignment (from CG) I gave my DM The Stare, proceeded to cast atonement, and continued being an upstanding, moral, helpful hero (And may or may not have OOCly told him to suck it)and got back to CN that same session by illustrating these same points (With extra emphasis on the 'Suck It.')By now I'm on my way back to CG.

Simply put, it depends on how you do it. You can be a NE lich druid, no problem. If you want to atone and get rid of the evil, no problem! just show that you're not an evil hateful bastard because of other people's prejudice.

To me it sounds sad with this kind of player entitelment.

But we all play differently:)
Edit:spelling and to say i think i wouldent trust you to control your own PC if you were charmed.


Fair enough, I get what you're all saying. Yeah, the suck it was maybe a bit much for some DM's, but we also have a little light hearted trash talking at our table. Again, this was something that me and my DM worked on together. No wool over the eyes on my part, and no (abnormal) laziness on his. And again, that original suck it, was my trash talk (which was more than okay, at our table) to my DM, on presenting my case. Not to anyone here, so I apologize if someone took it that way. (You should have heard the barbarian talking about what he was going to do to our DM's Dice...)


I don't doubt Shiney and his/her GM are having a fun game but...there are just certain lines that are NOT crossed for one to retain their soul, and lichdom is one of those lines. What gods could forgive someone who has done such a thing to themselves?

Good undead? Never. Well, perhaps a mummy who was wronged by his priests and much rise and wreak vengeance. Didn't mummies channel positive energy in the old days?

In the end, it is YOUR story that is told. If you've grown up on Twilight, and want sparkling vampires of goodness, then go for it. Tell your own myths. It's what we're all here for.

For me, undead will always be evil by the very fact they are the antithesis of life, an abomination of everything that lives and breathes, and liches are the epitome of that dark pact with Death.


Zhayne wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
Undead are never truly free-willed, even if they are intelligent any under nobody's thrall. The infusion of their very soul with Negative energy permanently corrupts the spirit. They are never truly the same person they were when they were alive.
Campaign-world flavor. Not a rule.

Actually, your claim:

Zhayne wrote:
He has free will. Thus, he can choose his own moral and ethical path. He doesn't even need atonement; he just needs to behave appropriately.

Is campaign-world flavor, and if any kind of rule, a house rule. The bestiary states that liches (and most other undead) are evil. Period. It does not state that liches can atone or that their alignment changes by behaving appropriately.

What it does state is:
Alignment: Any evil.

So while the claim that "undead are not free-willed" is not supported by the rules explicitly, the fact that liches are evil is, and the statement that they can change is far into the arena of house rules.

A lich is evil. It says it right there in the bestiary. The specific rule on liches alignment overrides the general rules of alignment spelled out in the CRB's description chapter.

Whether you interpret that as liches being free-willed but having sinned so completely they can never be redeemed or that they are not free-willed and are forced to act evily or however you want to explain it is campaign world flavor. Ruling that liches are not necessarily evil is a house rule, just like ruling a greatsword isn't necessarily a two-handed weapon is. That said, there might be a few even more specific circumstances that can override this, such as a helmet of opposite alignment.


The importance of a good lich can be found here:
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Srinshee


Owly wrote:

I don't doubt Shiney and his/her GM are having a fun game but...there are just certain lines that are NOT crossed for one to retain their soul, and lichdom is one of those lines. What gods could forgive someone who has done such a thing to themselves?

Good undead? Never. Well, perhaps a mummy who was wronged by his priests and much rise and wreak vengeance. Didn't mummies channel positive energy in the old days?

In the end, it is YOUR story that is told. If you've grown up on Twilight, and want sparkling vampires of goodness, then go for it. Tell your own myths. It's what we're all here for.

For me, undead will always be evil by the very fact they are the antithesis of life, an abomination of everything that lives and breathes, and liches are the epitome of that dark pact with Death.

Fair enough. Not for the sake of defending the argument for good liches (That's zombie pulp now, not even a horse) but to describe what happened, it's simple. My character doesn't care about the gods. As for his soul? Retain it? That's exactly what he did, it's in a box somewhere. My codex on vampirism is written by Stoker. But that's vampirism. Some people undertake lichdom as a moral or religious statement. Mine was a scientific, simple endeavour to extend his lifespan.

That's for him, not for everyone. And then he went, kept on doing good things and help people. And that worked. Not everyone thinks he's good, plenty will still consider him a vile stain. And that's okay, that's them. He'll keep doing what he wants, living the good life, fighting the good fight, until he does finally get offed. And he'll be laughing all the way down the boneyard.


I enjoyed reading the graveknight creation entry. Thanks for linking it!

And just for completeness, there are multiple places in the entry where the parallels between graveknights and liches are emphasized.

I once heard (on here?) of an evil campaign someone ran where the players were required to be evil (of course) and going after some type of immortality. There was a lich, some kind of wizard or alchemist immortality, and I believe a reincarnating druid? Anyway, after that campaign concluded, the GM set their next one 1000 years in the future and used their old characters as the antagonists. That ideas always stuck with me :)


Mythic universal path ability: Beyond Morality.

Now the question is moot. You can even be a paladin lich.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alwin G wrote:

Hey Guys, I have a quick question.

I'm running a campaign and one of the NPCs is a druid and through story progression ends up becoming a lich. Applying the lich template changes her alignment from any neutral to any evil which means she drops her druid abilities and spells.

My question is, can this character be affected by the atonement spell and/or atone on her own to change her alignment back to any neutral, without losing any lich powers/abilities while gaining her druid powers/abilities back? The lich template as far as I can tell doesn't mention anything about what happens to a lich's powers if she goes from evil to anything else.

Thanks for the help!

My advice?

Screw being a Lich.

Make her a Siabrae

And, as has been stated before, nothing precludes a Druid from being NE and keeping all their powers (and this template proves that the whole "Druids lose their powers as Undead because they're a mockery of nature" thing is a big crock too).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bestiary, stolen from MM wrote:
While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

Are liches mindless? No.

Are liches outsiders with alignment subtypes? No.

Well what do ya know...

Shadow Lodge

Majuba wrote:

Actually... we're all wrong:

Atonement wrote:
Target: living creature touched

Spells like cure and inflict have the same text, and we know those work on undead. The terminology here only really takes "moving" and "dead-dead" into consideration


Ilja wrote:

As i see it, there are two different issues: druid liches and nonevil liches.

Alignmentwise, lich and druid overlap at neutral evil.

I generally would not say that a lich can become non-evil by less than to stop being a lich - either because the lich is fueled by evil (see how animate dead is usually explained as evil because of this) or because undeadness twists the characters mind to become evil.

I would also have issues with ubdead druids as i see undead kind of the opposite of natural, but thats more of a case of campaign flavor and theres no real rule explicitly preventing a lich druid.

Does a druid lich wildshape into undead animals?


Avatar-1 wrote:
Majuba wrote:

Actually... we're all wrong:

Atonement wrote:
Target: living creature touched
Spells like cure and inflict have the same text, and we know those work on undead. The terminology here only really takes "moving" and "dead-dead" into consideration

In my book they have "Target creature touched" that is not at all the same.


Mechagamera wrote:
Does a druid lich wildshape into undead animals?

No - the druid lich remains undead while wildshaping (type does not change when polymorphing), but gains the shape of a living creature.

Of course... it would be cool... but rather complicated for little benefit, since most of the attributes of an undead form the lich would already retain.


Majuba wrote:


Of course... it would be cool... but rather complicated for little benefit, since most of the attributes of an undead form the lich would already retain.

See this is why the Siabrae is cool.

"Any form it assumes (via wild shape or polymorph effects) or any creature it summons appears malnourished, diseased, or even in an advanced state of decay, although these are cosmetic effects; they do not impact actual game statistics."

Though it kinda sucks they have this weird restriction on polymorphing into flying creatures.

Then again they also Burrow and Earth Glide and have the weird distinction of being the only Undead (I know of) that has an Elemental Subtype built into the template.


Cap. Darling wrote:
Avatar-1 wrote:
Majuba wrote:

Actually... we're all wrong:

Atonement wrote:
Target: living creature touched
Spells like cure and inflict have the same text, and we know those work on undead. The terminology here only really takes "moving" and "dead-dead" into consideration
In my book they have "Target creature touched" that is not at all the same.

Which book is that? The latest (6th) printing of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook says "living creature" (although personally I'd have no issues with any GM making the call that in their campaign it was also usable on undead if they're lifting the Pathfinder standard "undead=evil" clause in their game)


Matt Thomason wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Avatar-1 wrote:
Majuba wrote:

Actually... we're all wrong:

Atonement wrote:
Target: living creature touched
Spells like cure and inflict have the same text, and we know those work on undead. The terminology here only really takes "moving" and "dead-dead" into consideration
In my book they have "Target creature touched" that is not at all the same.
Which book is that? The latest (6th) printing of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook says "living creature" (although personally I'd have no issues with any GM making the call that in their campaign it was also usable on undead if they're lifting the Pathfinder standard "undead=evil" clause in their game)

Cure ligth wounds and that line of spells have Target creature touched in my book. That was what i responded to. Why would you want the undead to be non evil for them to work like they have always done?

And my book is from 2010.

Shadow Lodge

You're right, the PRD does seem to differentiate some spells with creature touched and living creature touched (with a quick search).

Atonement is living creature touched - so it seems intentional.


Shiney wrote:
Fair enough, I get what you're all saying. Yeah, the suck it was maybe a bit much for some DM's, but we also have a little light hearted trash talking at our table. Again, this was something that me and my DM worked on together. No wool over the eyes on my part, and no (abnormal) laziness on his. And again, that original suck it, was my trash talk (which was more than okay, at our table) to my DM, on presenting my case. Not to anyone here, so I apologize if someone took it that way. (You should have heard the barbarian talking about what he was going to do to our DM's Dice...)

Threatening his dice ?! that is just pure evil..

Liberty's Edge

Matt Thomason wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Avatar-1 wrote:
Majuba wrote:

Actually... we're all wrong:

Atonement wrote:
Target: living creature touched
Spells like cure and inflict have the same text, and we know those work on undead. The terminology here only really takes "moving" and "dead-dead" into consideration
In my book they have "Target creature touched" that is not at all the same.
Which book is that? The latest (6th) printing of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook says "living creature" (although personally I'd have no issues with any GM making the call that in their campaign it was also usable on undead if they're lifting the Pathfinder standard "undead=evil" clause in their game)

5th Edition CRB says "Creature Touched" and so does the PRD.

Atonement says "Living Creature Touched".

Someone above said they shared the same text, Cpt Darling was pointing out that they do not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fomsie wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Avatar-1 wrote:
Majuba wrote:

Actually... we're all wrong:

Atonement wrote:
Target: living creature touched
Spells like cure and inflict have the same text, and we know those work on undead. The terminology here only really takes "moving" and "dead-dead" into consideration
In my book they have "Target creature touched" that is not at all the same.
Which book is that? The latest (6th) printing of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook says "living creature" (although personally I'd have no issues with any GM making the call that in their campaign it was also usable on undead if they're lifting the Pathfinder standard "undead=evil" clause in their game)

5th Edition CRB says "Creature Touched" and so does the PRD.

Atonement says "Living Creature Touched".

Someone above said they shared the same text, Cpt Darling was pointing out that they do not.

d'oh, sorry, my brain read "atonement, living creature" then skipped down to "my book says..." without reading the bit in the middle!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
Undead are never truly free-willed, even if they are intelligent any under nobody's thrall. The infusion of their very soul with Negative energy permanently corrupts the spirit. They are never truly the same person they were when they were alive.
Campaign-world flavor. Not a rule.

Fine, if you want to say rules are all that matter, I can do that. Just like a lich's racial HD are changed to d8s, a lich's alignment is always evil. There are no mechanical rules for changing one's alignment that are not subject to to GM judgment and fiat, which the GM has the power to do anyway. If the GM says a fighter has a wizard's BAB, it is so; thus, any argument that exists solely because the GM can rule it true is invalid.

Thus, no lich is ever good through his conscious decision to change. It is only possible through specific mechanics that force alignment change, like cursed helms. Even in this case, the lich is not able to change his alignment from evil of his own free will.


Bizbag wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
Undead are never truly free-willed, even if they are intelligent any under nobody's thrall. The infusion of their very soul with Negative energy permanently corrupts the spirit. They are never truly the same person they were when they were alive.
Campaign-world flavor. Not a rule.

Fine, if you want to say rules are all that matter, I can do that. Just like a lich's racial HD are changed to d8s, a lich's alignment is always evil. There are no mechanical rules for changing one's alignment that are not subject to to GM judgment and fiat, which the GM has the power to do anyway. If the GM says a fighter has a wizard's BAB, it is so; thus, any argument that exists solely because the GM can rule it true is invalid.

Thus, no lich is ever good through his conscious decision to change. It is only possible through specific mechanics that force alignment change, like cursed helms. Even in this case, the lich is not able to change his alignment from evil of his own free will.

Quote:
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

EDIT: Unless you (Bizbag) have house-ruled that liches in your game are outsiders?


Majuba wrote:

Actually... we're all wrong:

Atonement wrote:
Target: living creature touched

Schooled.


I would Agree with everyone else.. you would retain your druidic powers..

as far as alignment... i would pull the DM aside after the game and talk to him, basically saying " seriously you are going to make me evil, can't i retain my alignment"...

if he sticks with the Evil part ( which wouldnt really affect any abilities you have).. make him pay.. be evil.


137ben wrote:
EDIT: Unless you (Bizbag) have house-ruled that liches in your game are outsiders?

For starters, this is all an attempt at pedantry, since my opinion of why liches *shouldn't* really be able to change their alignment was summarily dismissed as "not a rule".

A lich is not a monster. It is a template applied to other monsters [including NPCS]. When a template is applied, all of its aspects are applied, and one of those aspects is that the alignment of the creature is changed to Evil if it was not before. There is no way to change alignment further without GM judgment and fiat, or the use of cursed items, which the lich would never knowledgeably use of their own free will.

Yes, the GM can always change what he wants - I do so all the time. I even considered using a non-evil lich for my current campaign (the idea didn't work the way I wanted it). These are *always* campaign-world flavor and not rules, though - Is your campaign-world flavor valid, but mine invalid? The previously quoted poster seemed to believe so.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Owly wrote:

In the end, it is YOUR story that is told. If you've grown up on Twilight, and want sparkling vampires of goodness, then go for it. Tell your own myths. It's what we're all here for.

Plenty of folks grew up with examples of good undead far older and far more competently done than Twilight.

Not that this matters much to folks that want to take potshots at those that enjoy themes outside their narrow definitions of what certain things are "allowed" to be in fantasy.

Silver Crusade

Also, glad the baelnorn has already been mentined. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:
137ben wrote:
EDIT: Unless you (Bizbag) have house-ruled that liches in your game are outsiders?

For starters, this is all an attempt at pedantry, since my opinion of why liches *shouldn't* really be able to change their alignment was summarily dismissed as "not a rule".

A lich is not a monster. It is a template applied to other monsters [including NPCS]. When a template is applied, all of its aspects are applied, and one of those aspects is that the alignment of the creature is changed to Evil if it was not before. There is no way to change alignment further without GM judgment and fiat, or the use of cursed items, which the lich would never knowledgeably use of their own free will.

Yes, the GM can always change what he wants - I do so all the time. I even considered using a non-evil lich for my current campaign (the idea didn't work the way I wanted it). These are *always* campaign-world flavor and not rules, though - Is your campaign-world flavor valid, but mine invalid? The previously quoted poster seemed to believe so.

The core rules explicitly grant all non-outsiders the ability to have different alignments than normal. If you decide liches cannot become good sometime after becoming liches, you are house-ruling.

You are free to do that. It just won't apply to anyone else's campaign.


Well in Bizbag's defense, all undead in Golarion are evil with notable exceptions. Like Ghosts.

Lantern Lodge

Just to throw a bone in, spirits are undead right? So Ghosts, wraiths, other things...

How about spirits form heaven? Are they evil because they are undead?


They are petitioners. Entirely different thing.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:
Owly wrote:

In the end, it is YOUR story that is told. If you've grown up on Twilight, and want sparkling vampires of goodness, then go for it. Tell your own myths. It's what we're all here for.

Plenty of folks grew up with examples of good undead far older and far more competently done than Twilight.

Not that this matters much to folks that want to take potshots at those that enjoy themes outside their narrow definitions of what certain things are "allowed" to be in fantasy.

From a bit more recent generation: Vampire Hunter D

From 1845: Varney the Vampire


Alwin G wrote:

Hey Guys, I have a quick question.

I'm running a campaign and one of the NPCs is a druid and through story progression ends up becoming a lich. Applying the lich template changes her alignment from any neutral to any evil which means she drops her druid abilities and spells.

My question is, can this character be affected by the atonement spell and/or atone on her own to change her alignment back to any neutral, without losing any lich powers/abilities while gaining her druid powers/abilities back? The lich template as far as I can tell doesn't mention anything about what happens to a lich's powers if she goes from evil to anything else.

Thanks for the help!

Bro do you even neutral evil?

Being a lich and being a druid are not mutually exclusive.


Even if the lich is branded neutral evil, you don't have to play it that way. Alignment is not a shackle. When there's sufficient conflict between a character's behavior and her alignment, which one generally wins?


Liches are listed in the beastiary as "any evil", as undead are presumed to be. However, a previous edition allowed for the existance of non-evil liches, stating them to be "rare as roc's teeth". Whether all undead radiate evil regardless of their own moral compass is another issue, perhaps just a GM fiat.

The simpler solution is to note that druids may in fact be NE, as noted above, therefore alignment alone poses no issue. If, by your story progression, your druid is not violating his/her vows, then no worries. If so, there WERE some non-evil undead that may have been a better fit, I believe... but I can't seem to find an analogy on Golarion.

Quick edit on references to Good undead:

Vampire Hunter D and Blade were a dhampirs. They are a playable race without alignment restriction, and are considered as Humanoid.

Louie, and later (arguably) Lestat were Good(ish) vampires

Mick Angel of Moonlight was a Good vampire

There are an endless number of non-evil ghosts one could research and list, but that drifts further from the point.

Twilight featured NO undead of any kind, much less any vampires. THOSE CREATURES WERE NOT VAMPIRES. The author had originally written them as angels, but was advised to edit them to vampires to appease the Hot-Topic tween crowd. They seem more akin to weird fey, to me, and if you want sparkly aasimar or fey, fine.

Don't get me started on f'ing Twilight... lol


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But what team are youuuu?!


I would think a lich has to be pretty evil (maybe irredeemably so) to become a lich, because the process involves deforming your own soul. Cf. Voldemort from those books and movies about whats-his-name.

As the Baron suggests, vampire makes much more sense for a good or potentially good undead.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A particularly neat alternative undead are ghouls, using Pathfinder's take on how they work:

Have you noticed how some ghouls look like rotten corpses and some look downright beautiful in Pathfinder art?

Ghouls tend to follow the form of their possible progenitor, the first ghoul Kabiri.

If they manage to control their hunger, eating only a bit, they look like gaunt, hairless, chalk-white, red-eyed elves.

If they give into their hunger, going all feral and gorging on flesh, they start to outwardly decay, their flesh constantly rotting and regenerating.

It's enough to motivate some evil civilized ghouls to control themselves, but for the rare good ghoul, it could serve as a tell for who well they're staying on the wagon.

That and urbane, civilized ghouls are creepier than urbane, civilized vampires, because there's no romanticizing that diet. D:


@Buri Team "I'm too too old to be on Teams!" of course! XD Or Team "Stupid Tween Fads Are Ruining My Fantasies!!".

Maybe I missed when it was said, but I've been wondering a key question: What type of campaign is he doing? Is he in a Pathfinder Society Sanctioned one? Or is this an independent campaign? If it's independent, then house rules can apply. If not, then he'd need to follow what's allowed by PS right?


If you want to convince a lich to atone, buy that lich some flowers.

Liches love flowers.


Stuff like this is why I really like my own rules for undead.


Ilja wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
Undead are never truly free-willed, even if they are intelligent any under nobody's thrall. The infusion of their very soul with Negative energy permanently corrupts the spirit. They are never truly the same person they were when they were alive.
Campaign-world flavor. Not a rule.

Actually, your claim:

Zhayne wrote:
He has free will. Thus, he can choose his own moral and ethical path. He doesn't even need atonement; he just needs to behave appropriately.

Is campaign-world flavor, and if any kind of rule, a house rule. The bestiary states that liches (and most other undead) are evil. Period. It does not state that liches can atone or that their alignment changes by behaving appropriately.

What it does state is:
Alignment: Any evil.

So while the claim that "undead are not free-willed" is not supported by the rules explicitly, the fact that liches are evil is, and the statement that they can change is far into the arena of house rules.

A lich is evil. It says it right there in the bestiary. The specific rule on liches alignment overrides the general rules of alignment spelled out in the CRB's description chapter.

Whether you interpret that as liches being free-willed but having sinned so completely they can never be redeemed or that they are not free-willed and are forced to act evily or however you want to explain it is campaign world flavor. Ruling that liches are not necessarily evil is a house rule, just like ruling a greatsword isn't necessarily a two-handed weapon is. That said, there might be a few even more specific circumstances that can override this, such as a helmet of opposite alignment.

Those alignments are not a rule unless listed as a requirement. They are are just the norm, just like most drow will be evil. Now with a lich I dont see how they could not be evil considering the stuff they have to do in order to become a lich. I can a see a vampire hating those like him, if he was turned against his will, but liches are evil in my games.


I don't see how a forced alignment change doesn't have longstanding impact on your character.

The fact that you were just able to seek atonement for becoming a Lich is a notion utterly ridiculous to me. "Gee wiz, I'm really sorry about becoming a horrible undead abomination and a mockery of natural life. I'll go back to being a good guy now." Especially since you only did it to prolong your life.

I guess the point is, once you become evil, it should take a long, LONG time to revert, if that opportunity even comes up. Chances are, the Lich goes on a killing spree or starts enacting a dark plan right after it's created. You're an evil character now, doing as an evil character would. What would you do now that you were an unstoppable embodiment of unlife?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even in Golarion you don't have to do atrocious things to become a lich. Look up Arazni some time.


blahpers wrote:
Even in Golarion you don't have to do atrocious things to become a lich. Look up Arazni some time.

Seems like the herald of a deity was unable to resist the power of a mortal necromancer. And he managed to subvert her very nature.

51 to 100 of 191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can a Lich atone? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.