Can a Lich atone?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Doesn't Undead Revisited, in the section on the Lich towards the end, specifically say it is very rare for good liches to exist but that good liches DO exist or that it is not out of the question for them to exist? I think I'll check my copy in the morning.


Araxiss wrote:
Doesn't Undead Revisited, in the section on the Lich towards the end, specifically say it is very rare for good liches to exist but that good liches DO exist or that it is not out of the question for them to exist? I think I'll check my copy in the morning.

No it does not. It does state however,

Undead Revisted, Liches wrote:
It is not merely force of will that propels one to lichdom, nor is it the simple desire to avoid death, though these are certainly factors in the mindset of the would-be lich. Instead, those who would follow the path of the undying mind must seek out tomes of forbidden magic and lost lore. Though the initiates might not be evil when they begin, the process under which they become liches drives them slowly into the arms of corruption—the focus they must develop drives out all other concerns, including the civilized needs of friendship and love.

Then later

Undead Revisted, Liches wrote:
Though they may start out simply seeking more time in which to continue their work, with no true predilection toward evil, in the end, all liches inevitably cycle down into madness or a paranoia that mortals seek to annihilate them—the latter, of course, often being true.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

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.

I know D is a Dhampir, I was referring to Mayerling from Demon Deathchase/Bloodlust and Baron Balaz from Pale Fallen Angel as well as Count Braujou from Tyrant's Stars.


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

Stories are sometimes written with disregard for the rules, just like how in Eberron(3.5) a lich was also a half-dragon which was not allowed by the rules IIRC.

PS: Eberron has no rules exception to cover that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because I like talking about it, my undead work like this:

Undead don't run forever without energy. They can retain their energy when in torpor, but then they're not really doing anything.

Undead can replenish their physical and mental reserves by feeding on 'life force' in various ways, depending on the type of undead (living flesh for zombies, blood for vampires, spiritual essence for ghosts).

An undead that runs out of physical energy can't run or take other actions that require exertion, losing a lot of their agility.

An undead that runs out of mental energy becomes animalistic, hungering to replenish itself by hunting the living. It loses the ability to think like a person until it can recover and some are so far gone and traumatised that they can't break out of mindless hunger even when satiated.

Liches are simply undead that can use magic. As magic has a mental cost, the only way to replenish it is to feed on the living... or rely on other casters for magical energy.

It's pretty hard for liches not to be evil, but it is possible! And it's all revolving around actual in-game consequences, not some mysterious undeclared 'evil' ritual.


What I'd like to see is a way to extend one's life without becoming undead.

Other methods I can think of...

- Golem/Clockwork soul transference. So you only need to "fix" your body when damaged, but otherwise you don't die of old age.

- Reincarnation without limits. Take the path of Doctor Who! Come back to life as a new person every time, and scoff at old age issues.

- Become a plant. Be like Vash the Stampede!

.

All of these things, of course, may cause a Marut to come after you. Unless you get sanction from a god or something to do this.

A lvl 20 Monk of the four winds gains the reincarnation immortality method. A 20th level Wizard or Alchemist can grab the "doesn't age" immortality (though violent death isn't prevented). There's precedence for non-undead undying.

It would be nice to have a lich-mechanic method of immortality (pay money and need caster level) that didn't necessarily involve the evil alignment or becoming undead.


Rysky wrote:
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

Ditent Varney kill him self in the end rater than live on his cursed existence?

That is the kind of flavor a "good" undead often have.


Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

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

Louie kill some one every Night to continue his own existence. What we have here May be a difference in definition for the concept of Good:)


Other paths to immortality besides evil undeath, other than those mentioned by Kaisoku above.

1: Be a Samsaran. You may not remember you previous life but you do reincarnate. By fluff your body even vaporizes after death and can't be made into an undead critter.
Might even be possible to have some massive quest to unlock the memories of all your past lives, if your GM agrees.

2: There are actually 2 construct ways to become undead. First there is the Soulbound Shell from bestiary 4, but that only works for spellcasters. Second there is

Last part Shattered Star AP:
The Clockwork reliquary. While the exact construction methods aren't listed anywhere it is a way. You just have to figure it out with your GM.

3: There also is at least one confirmed case of a non-evil, non-ghost undead

Dragon's Demand module:
The Iroran Mummy. It might not be ideal though as the one example becomes a mummy as a form of penance and to sit as an eternal guardian.

Personally I think the only evil undead rule is kinda bogus and more a personal preference from JJ than anything else. While admittedly good undead are a rarity in folklore neutral undead are quite prevalent. There are plenty of stories about vampire spirits that feed exclusively on livestock for instance.

That and I still want a way to animate corpses using plants or vermin (think maggots). Yellow Musk Zombies prove it can be done.


wraithstrike wrote:


Those alignments are not a rule unless listed as a requirement. They are are just the norm, just like most drow will be evil.

Does that apply to everything in the template? Is a d8 hit dice just the norm, and I can choose to have a d12 instead?


Ilja wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Those alignments are not a rule unless listed as a requirement. They are are just the norm, just like most drow will be evil.
Does that apply to everything in the template? Is a d8 hit dice just the norm, and I can choose to have a d12 instead?

Nope. It applies exclusively to alignment, because it's affected by the 'changing alignments' rule on page 168 of the core rulebook and the passage from the bestiary that been quoted many times in the thread already.

Most notable being 'If a character wants to change his alignment, let him - in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character.'


AnnoyingOrange wrote:
Shiney wrote:
(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..

No. Eight crits and two instant deaths (nat 20, confirmed crit, then 100's on the percentiles for our homebrew crit hit chart) are pure evil.


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.

This may be like ultra-late in the conversation, but what you describe here is EXACTLY what it takes to become an "Archlich" (or good lich) in the forgotten realms. In that setting, most liches are evil because they make pacts with Orcus (god of undead) or sacrifice innumerable souls to gain that power, both of which make them evil.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Archlich

You seem to have done your homework, done it properly, and should never even have approached an evil alignement (according to me anyway). Just thought I'd give my 2cp.
My understanding has always been if becoming undead is your choice, and you perform no evil acts to become undead, you arent evil. Zombies (IE desecrated bodies) are evil as a reflection of whatever created them, the same goes for most "enslaved" undead. As in, the act of forcing dead bodies to rise counts as desecrating them (Evil act), making you (and the undead risen) evil.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cap. Darling wrote:
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

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

Louie kill some one every Night to continue his own existence. What we have here May be a difference in definition for the concept of Good:)

I've just read Interview but going off of that I don't remember any "good" characters at all.


Majuba wrote:
Shiney wrote:
We went by the D20PFSRD, not the PRD.

Exact same text. (for once)

Shiney wrote:
Soooo, yeah. I'm a lich. CN, and CG this upcoming session. Y.M.M.V., I'm just trying to show that this is something that you really can go any direction on, as that seemed to be not present in this thread yet.
You did catch that you're not a valid target for atonement, yes?

You're saying he can't touch himself?


williamoak wrote:
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.

This may be like ultra-late in the conversation, but what you describe here is EXACTLY what it takes to become an "Archlich" (or good lich) in the forgotten realms. In that setting, most liches are evil because they make pacts with Orcus (god of undead) or sacrifice innumerable souls to gain that power, both of which make them evil.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Archlich

You seem to have done your homework, done it properly, and should never even have approached an evil alignement (according to me anyway). Just thought I'd give my 2cp.
My understanding has always been if becoming undead is your choice, and you perform no evil acts to become undead, you arent evil. Zombies (IE desecrated bodies) are evil as a reflection of whatever created them, the same goes for most "enslaved" undead. As in, the act of forcing dead bodies to rise counts as desecrating them (Evil act), making you (and the undead risen) evil.

I've pointed this out but apparently it's been ignored by the arguing parties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I've just read Interview but going off of that I don't remember any "good" characters at all.

I think the good lesson to take from Interview is that evil people still have hopes, dreams, likes, dislikes, personal tragedies, good qualities, ordinary bad qualities, and everything else normal people do. They are murderers, criminals or monsters, but still people. Villains are most interesting to me when they are undeniably bad people, but have otherwise ordinary traits.


mkenner wrote:
Nope. It applies exclusively to alignment, because it's affected by the 'changing alignments' rule on page 168 of the core rulebook and the passage from the bestiary that been quoted many times in the thread already.

But again, that part in the bestiary is about monsters, but Lich is listed under templates, not monsters, which makes that point moot from a RAW perspective. The core rulebook chapter puts out no rules at all really, and also is directed at player characters, not NPC's.

Note that these posts began as a response to a person claiming "liches have free will", and then quoting someone saying "liches don't really have free will" and commenting that with that not being supported by RAW. Hence why I focus on the RAW, rather than what makes sense.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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!

Depends on how you run your druidical codes. For a druid, alignment is not the only consideration, it's the bond to nature itself. If your character took a deliberate route to lichdom he deliberately turned himself into an abomination as far as nature is concerned. What you're asking is much like a player wanting to create a Paladin/Anti-Paladin gestalt. If you want divine powers for your NPC lich, consider having him retrain his druidical levels to some form of cleric of an appropriately aligned power, perhaps some god of blight.


Grollub wrote:

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

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

Actually, the recent Order of the Stick comics have a great example of how an alignment-changed PC (due to undeath) can still contribute positively to the group.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Blight Druid Lich is a perfect example.


Elfguy wrote:
You're saying he can't touch himself?

Not with that spell. Not if you want anything to happen, that is.


Quote:
Actually, the recent Order of the Stick comics have a great example of how an alignment-changed PC (due to undeath) can still contribute positively to the group.

That is true. There's some ambiguity as to whether his forced alignment shift will be, er, enforced. He wasn't undead for centuries like his sire was, so he hasn't shifted personalities and is under no thrall. We'll see where he goes with it.


Cap. Darling wrote:
Rysky wrote:
From 1845: Varney the Vampire

Ditent Varney kill him self in the end rater than live on his cursed existence?

That is the kind of flavor a "good" undead often have.

Indeed - similar to Jander Sunstar, from the Ravenloft novel "Vampire of the Mists".


Buri wrote:
Elfguy wrote:
You're saying he can't touch himself?
Not with that spell. Not if you want anything to happen, that is.

Bulls Strength has the same wording as far as creature touch and a caster cold cast bull strength on himself. So as long as the druid doesn't have his spells stripped away there's no reason why he couldn't.


krevon wrote:
Buri wrote:
Elfguy wrote:
You're saying he can't touch himself?
Not with that spell. Not if you want anything to happen, that is.
Bulls Strength has the same wording as far as creature touch and a caster cold cast bull strength on himself. So as long as the druid doesn't have his spells stripped away there's no reason why he couldn't.

Exept that he is no longer living when he is a lich.


It's not the touch part, it's the "living" part.


Technically there's no rule against a Druid becomming a Lich. Common sense however... A druid gets their powers from nature and being part of the cycle of life. Lichdom takes you out of this cycle. As a PC who is supposed to exalt life this should be devistating. The natural world they once were apart of should be repelled by the PC in disgust. They should be cut off from any and all druid powers as they are no longer apart of the natural world.

I've never seen being a lich=evil. Unless the ritual you use involves eating the flesh of an unbaptized child or something. They want to cheat death and "live" forever. That strikes me as more selfish (neutral). Not good mind you, but not always evil either. Any non-good sounds more appropriate to me than any evil. But that's a house rule.

If lichdom is something they sought, there should be no atonment until they are living again. You have to be truely repentant for atonment to work and continuing to be a lich shows you are not truely sorry for your transgression. This is not really an alignment issue, more of a "natural vs. unnatural", "worlds colliding" thing. They went out of their way to seek power from something anathema to nature. And are currently in a state of being that IS anathema to nature. Nature isn't going to grant power to the enemy. A quest should be involved with the atonment after they find away to become living again. Until then, no Druid powers... unless you want to do the Blight Druid thing. Going down the path of a Blight Druid should be unforgivable and the PC should never become a regular druid again; unless they "save all of nature" or some other epic feat.

If lichdom was somehow forced upon them, I see no reason for an alignment shift at all. And should get their powers back after they become living again with an atonement spell.

This is all my opionion of course and is colored by how I view things. Do whatever makes sense in your game, and take what you will from my 2cp.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Death, destruction, and decay are just as much a part of the cycle of life as is birth and growth.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
Death, destruction, and decay are just as much a part of the cycle of life as is birth and growth.

Unlife, Unnatural restoration and y'know just generally being fueled by unholy magic is not a part of the natural order.

You're not actually dead. You're a cruel mockery of either concept. You're not actually decaying either. Forever suspended by magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With Captain Wackey's logic you could never make a plague druid that goes around culling things so new things can grow. It's still a valid concept.


Buri wrote:
With Captain Wackey's logic you could never make a plague druid that goes around culling things so new things can grow. It's still a valid concept.

Thats why we have Siabrae

Lichdom isn't something to be thrown around willy nilly.

Also note that Neutral Evil is the only alignment the undead druid can have while retaining it's powers. And the one the Siabrae changes you to.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Liches are not living beings in any shape or form. Now are good liches possible? It's possible but it's far from being easy. Even undead with the best intentions end up despising the living after spending many years in their condition. Not being able to feel any emotions can have quite a traumatic effect on the psyche.

After all the battle to retain humanity is actually an entire roleplaying system in itself (World of Darkness vampire books). Plus from what I recall the good Elves liches of Faerun basically spend their times in crypt just advising their descendants, even elves know better than letting the Liches running around freely.


A plague druid is natural; plague is a natural part of the cycle of life; undeath is not...


krevon wrote:
williamoak wrote:
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.

This may be like ultra-late in the conversation, but what you describe here is EXACTLY what it takes to become an "Archlich" (or good lich) in the forgotten realms. In that setting, most liches are evil because they make pacts with Orcus (god of undead) or sacrifice innumerable souls to gain that power, both of which make them evil.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Archlich

You seem to have done your homework, done it properly, and should never even have approached an evil alignement (according to me anyway). Just thought I'd give my 2cp.
My understanding has always been if becoming undead is your choice, and you perform no evil acts to become undead, you arent evil. Zombies (IE desecrated bodies) are evil as a reflection of whatever created them, the same goes for most "enslaved" undead. As in, the act of forcing dead bodies to rise counts as desecrating them (Evil act), making you (and the undead risen) evil.

I've pointed this out but apparently it's been ignored by the arguing parties.

Archliches are rare and go against the "norms" like a good red dragon or a redeemed fiend. It might say something of the human psyche that we are typically more willing to see evil version of the normally-good than the reverse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering how often people in PF modules die relatively normal (if perhaps heinous) and just spring back up as undead for little reason other than "he was afraid of fire" or "she was really mad at her killer", it seems to me that undeath is part of the natural order.


Eltacolibre wrote:

Not being able to feel any emotions can have quite a traumatic effect on the psyche.

Wait, what? Where are you getting that undead don't feel emotions? I've never heard of that in any published campaign setting or other source. Is that a detail from your own campaign world?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Considering how often people in PF modules die relatively normal (if perhaps heinous) and just spring back up as undead for little reason other than "he was afraid of fire" or "she was really mad at her killer", it seems to me that undeath is part of the natural order.

This is the most valid "undeath is part of the natural order" argument i've ever seen. Kudos. I still don't think undeath and druids are compatible fluff wise, but I can see where you're coming from.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually I can think of a non evil human lich from the Forgotten Realms, Ioulaum.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Ioulaum.

That said, he's probably the most powerful caster that world has ever seen, unless you count Karsus' spell that took out Mystryl making him the most powerful. Of course he couldn't control that power and died screaming so I don't really think it counted.

At any rate, lorewise there are precedents for neutral and good versions of the lich, just not really that common. Although as always, if its good with your DM and works with your group, roll with it. Might want to watch out for random parties of peasants wielding pitchforks and torches though, I could see a lot of those in your immediate future...


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Considering how often people in PF modules die relatively normal (if perhaps heinous) and just spring back up as undead for little reason other than "he was afraid of fire" or "she was really mad at her killer", it seems to me that undeath is part of the natural order.
This is the most valid "undeath is part of the natural order" argument i've ever seen. Kudos. I still don't think undeath and druids are compatible fluff wise, but I can see where you're coming from.

See, I dont know how much any "adventurer's life" can be compared to what is "normal"; after all, adventurer's are going after the weirdest stuff; I myself treat them as "deforming reality around them" (I'll be including a mechanic in one of my games where every time the entire group crosses a door, I roll a dice, with a 1/400 chance they get "transported" somewhere else).


137ben wrote:
Eltacolibre wrote:

Not being able to feel any emotions can have quite a traumatic effect on the psyche.

Wait, what? Where are you getting that undead don't feel emotions? I've never heard of that in any published campaign setting or other source. Is that a detail from your own campaign world?

Yeah, many undead are stated to have quite strong emotions quite often.


Depends on the lore of the setting and the flavor of liches therein. I like paizo's take on liches (that they must commit a heinous act of mass murder or similar crime to achieve lichdom), so I'd rule, personally, that at my table, such a thing as a "redeemed" lich would be impossible. Perhaps, though, there could be a variant lich that attains lichdom in some other way, perhaps through self-sacrifice. Forgotten Realm's baelnorns are pretty cool, after all.


williamoak wrote:
...(I'll be including a mechanic in one of my games where every time the entire group crosses a door, I roll a dice, with a 1/400 chance they get "transported" somewhere else).

This kind of randomness is gonna make your GMing very hard, and i am uncertain how it will enrich the game.

But i am curious how it will work out for you:)


Scavion wrote:
Araxiss wrote:
Doesn't Undead Revisited, in the section on the Lich towards the end, specifically say it is very rare for good liches to exist but that good liches DO exist or that it is not out of the question for them to exist? I think I'll check my copy in the morning.

No it does not. It does state however,

Undead Revisted, Liches wrote:
It is not merely force of will that propels one to lichdom, nor is it the simple desire to avoid death, though these are certainly factors in the mindset of the would-be lich. Instead, those who would follow the path of the undying mind must seek out tomes of forbidden magic and lost lore. Though the initiates might not be evil when they begin, the process under which they become liches drives them slowly into the arms of corruption—the focus they must develop drives out all other concerns, including the civilized needs of friendship and love.

Then later

Undead Revisted, Liches wrote:
Though they may start out simply seeking more time in which to continue their work, with no true predilection toward evil, in the end, all liches inevitably cycle down into madness or a paranoia that mortals seek to annihilate them—the latter, of course, often being true.

Ah! Thanks for the clarification! I've not had time to go back and re-read my copy.


Buri wrote:
With Captain Wackey's logic you could never make a plague druid that goes around culling things so new things can grow. It's still a valid concept.

Actually culling the weak falls under a regular druids duties. You see this with plants and animals all the time, thus it is a part of a regular druids duties to do this. It is also a Druids job to spread plauges when the need arises and a particular area too abundant with a specific form of life. This is a job for evil And good aligned druids. It's their job as ministers of nature.

Plauge druids on the other hand are Specialized in culling. and if they use their power in excess they risk tipping the balance of nature and Should suffer natures wrath for that. They can't just "go around culling things" they have to be careful what they cull. And if they arn't they are culled themselves.

Death and destrution are natural in the cycle of life and death. Being undead removes you from that cycle, thus the undead are an abomination.

And now that I'm thinking about it I don't even see a lich plague druid unless it's drawing it's power from some source that will allow it to cause plagues for the sake of the plague alone (death/disease god, demon lord, etc..).


Captain Wacky wrote:
And now that I'm thinking about it I don't even see a lich plague druid unless it's drawing it's power from some source that will allow it to cause plagues for the sake of the plague alone (death/disease god, demon lord, etc..).

Apollyon perhaps?


Cap. Darling wrote:
williamoak wrote:
...(I'll be including a mechanic in one of my games where every time the entire group crosses a door, I roll a dice, with a 1/400 chance they get "transported" somewhere else).

This kind of randomness is gonna make your GMing very hard, and i am uncertain how it will enrich the game.

But i am curious how it will work out for you:)

Eh, I'm being VERY careful with it; it wont send you to the other side of the continent, but you will (shortly) be sent to another plane were they face a low-risk challenge; fail, you go home, succeed, you can get something cool.


Majuba wrote:
Captain Wacky wrote:
And now that I'm thinking about it I don't even see a lich plague druid unless it's drawing it's power from some source that will allow it to cause plagues for the sake of the plague alone (death/disease god, demon lord, etc..).
Apollyon perhaps?

Yes! That! I can see.

Scarab Sages

The world-specific fluff supporting what Druidism means and where their power comes from could change things a lot.

Eberron does actually have a sect of Druids who worship the whole concept of culling the weak and survival of the fittest, etc. (The Children of Winter). If Child of Winter PC in my game wanted to become a Lich, I think they would still count as "revering nature" at least as far as the Children of Winter were concerned.

Then there's the Gatekeepers, who are technically Druids, but don't even care that much about protecting the fuzzy animals or stopping the march of progress so much as they hate Outsiders and Aberrations. I would be a little more wary of this one but I'm GMing for a Gatekeeper PC who definitely takes an "end justifies the means" approach to Gatekeeper-dom. It just so happens that he's more interested in achieving "immortality" by having Reincarnation cast on him each time he hits old age. I can't really argue with that, though, as he still reveres nature in as much as he believes in protecting the sanctity of the material plane against invasion by Outsiders.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Considering how often people in PF modules die relatively normal (if perhaps heinous) and just spring back up as undead for little reason other than "he was afraid of fire" or "she was really mad at her killer", it seems to me that undeath is part of the natural order.

It's more of a reflection on how corrupted the natural order is by forces druids generally oppose.

101 to 150 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.