Saying there is good aligned "excpetions" in FR is like saying Adamantine is good at getting through hardness.And if you don't consider murdering 50 people an act of great evil, well...I question your value of life, even unwanted or unwelcome life.Life has value, yes. Like all things, a variable value.
Rounding up a bunch of innocent children to slaughter to power an evil ritual? EVIL f+$+ing evil.
Rounding up a bunch of rapists to slaughter to power an evil ritual? Wee smidge of evil. Mostly because of the killing to power the ritual than just the killing.
Nope. Hugely evil, maybe not according to your personal morality but using lives to fuel an evil ritual meant to make you and unspeakably evil undead creature is basically THE DEFINITION OF AN EVIL ACT (and like it or not in D&D undead almost always means evil, moreso for lichdom if we exclude some Forgotten Realms critters).
With a rapist the decent thing to do would be to apprehend him and then give him to the appropriate authorities. If he resists and there is no other way, to kill him. Sacrificing his soul in order to gain the power of lichdom, that's to me is just a player attempting to trick his DM. It may work, depending on the game and the DM of course, but it still won't be a good or neutral act, sacrificing someone's soul is pure evil, no matter how bad the person in question is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying there is good aligned "excpetions" in FR is like saying Adamantine is good at getting through hardness.And if you don't consider murdering 50 people an act of great evil, well...I question your value of life, even unwanted or unwelcome life.Life has value, yes. Like all things, a variable value.
Rounding up a bunch of innocent children to slaughter to power an evil ritual? EVIL f+$+ing evil.
Rounding up a bunch of rapists to slaughter to power an evil ritual? Wee smidge of evil. Mostly because of the killing to power the ritual than just the killing.
Nope. Hugely evil, maybe not according to your personal morality but using lives to fuel an evil ritual meant to make you and unspeakably evil undead creature is basically THE DEFINITION OF AN EVIL ACT (and like it or not in D&D undead almost always means evil, moreso for lichdom if we exclude some Forgotten Realms critters).
With a rapist the decent thing to do would be to apprehend him and then give him to the appropriate authorities. If he resists and there is no other way, to kill him. Sacrificing his soul in order to gain the power of lichdom, that's to me is just a player attempting to trick his DM. It may work, depending on the game and the DM of course, but it still won't be a good or neutral act, sacrificing someone's soul is pure evil, no matter how bad the person in question is.
I didn't say it wasn't evil, I'm saying it's very much less evil than sacrificing innocents. Still evil though.
And I wouldn't call Liches "unspeakably" evil, no more than other intelligent undead. In fact for the Lich (going off the PRD) they only evil part to them is their alignment requirement. For the ritual to become one it's completely left up to the player and GM how it goes about.
There's also no such thing a "decent thing" to do to a rapist.
You genuinely believe killing a rapist for being a rapist is more evil than sacrificing them?
i genuinely believe killing someone for no reason is worse than killing someone for a bad reason.
There's also no such thing a "decent thing" to do to a rapist.
this sentiment is non-good.
|
|
You genuinely believe killing a rapist for being a rapist is more evil than sacrificing them?i genuinely believe killing someone for no reason is worse than killing someone for a bad reason.
Ah, okay, I misread your earlier statement.
Just randomly murdering is evil yes. But in this case we do have a reason, because they're rapists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And?There's also no such thing a "decent thing" to do to a rapist.this sentiment is non-good.
"and" nothing. i just thought we were saying pointless things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys, so, my GM is letting one of the other players become a lich, which yes, I know is a bad idea :(. With this in mind, I'm wanting to prepare for the inevitable conflict between my character (Currently a level nine wizard and level one Eldritch Knight) and his (Currently a level 10 Undead Lord Cleric) since my character is LG and he's going to be NE. He's been talking about how strong lich's are and how he'll be immune to all these things, so my question is, how should I prepare to fight him? Anything inside paizo is the material we're working with, no third party.
Wow, so this is like a laundry list of everything wrong with modern gaming. Not your fault, Bill Nye 924, it's just a series of unfortunate decisions by your GM and the rest of your group that led up to this.
1) High-level gameplay in D&D 3.x and Pathfinder is inherently, mathematically broken. CR breaks down after about level 12, the d20 itself loses most of its relevance, and quadratic spellcasters start breaking everything. Tacking on templates is going to make it even worse. I've said it before and I'll say it again: E6 fixes almost everything on this list, but it sounds like that ship sailed for your group a long time ago.
2) A GM should never allow PvP fighting. Ever. No, not even then, in an arena/tournament style game. Just stop it. There's no such thing as PvP balance in most RPGs, especially 3.x/Pathfinder. It's not because the designers are incompetent or obstinate, it's because the core design is a cooperative storytelling experience and they've (thankfully) stuck to it.
3) Allowing evil alignments is already a bad idea, but having a mixed party is basically just saying to your table, "I'm going to start this campaign where you can all play whatever alignments you want with the full understanding that it will eventually explode when alignment-based disagreements and conflict rip the party apart." It just never works. No, not even then. Stop it. If you want to role-play as an evil jerk who does whatever he wants, go wreak some havoc in GTA where your antics are expected and aren't going to ruin the game for everyone.
4) A clever GM would turn the story around so that him becoming a lich was the curse of some jealous evil deity. Suddenly instead of inter-party conflict, you have all the good guys trying to help the evil character find a cure for lichdom or, at least, conceal him from society.
This is the part where most people here are going to say, "sit down with your group and talk it out OOC" but I'm going to go in a different direction: You've got yourself a bunch of high-level characters who sound like they've been around for a while. I'd suggest running a handful of climactic sessions and wrapping up the campaign. Hey, maybe that character does become a lich and that's how he's retired. Better yet, maybe he becomes a lich and the GM uses him as the antagonist for the next campaign. Man, there are a ton of ways to turn this whole fiasco around into something positive, but I've got to agree with some of the previous responses in this thread:
What you've got yourself is a mess.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're playing the game wrong. Just stop it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Rysky
There is no difference between doing evil to good or evil to evil. Only the sense of personal justification that people get seeing people who hurt get hurt. If I murder someone to become a lich, it doesn't matter if it's a rapist, the pope, an innocent girl selling flowers to pay for medicine to save her dying mother, or a demon.
I'm committing the same evil act of hurting, oppressing, and/or killing for my own self gratification. The fact that you feel it's somehow more acceptable or wholesome to do so to a rapist, or demon, or whatever, is exactly what I was speaking about when I said that some people may even thank you for committing atrocious acts of evil because it benefits or strokes their sense of justice in a way that gets their gears turning.
Taking 50 lives is a big deal, but few are going to complain if you take the lives of fifty brigands. They're just going to be happy that there are less brigands and they wanted them dead anyway. It doesn't change the fact that killing is an aspect of evil and killing for self gratification is almost impossible to do without being evil.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) High-level gameplay in D&D 3.x and Pathfinder is inherently, mathematically broken. CR breaks down after about level 12, the d20 itself loses most of its relevance, and quadratic spellcasters start breaking everything. Tacking on templates is going to make it even worse. I've said it before and I'll say it again: E6 fixes almost everything on this list, but it sounds like that ship sailed for your group a long time ago.
There are some issues at high level play but the game doesn't break down as much as it's often said. However, it does change. The same tactics and strategies that work at low levels don't always work at high levels. CR tends to work out pretty fairly most of the time.
2) A GM should never allow PvP fighting. Ever. No, not even then, in an arena/tournament style game. Just stop it. There's no such thing as PvP balance in most RPGs, especially 3.x/Pathfinder. It's not because the designers are incompetent or obstinate, it's because the core design is a cooperative storytelling experience and they've (thankfully) stuck to it.
False. PvP is an inherent, integral part of the game, because NPCs frequently use the exact same classes, spells, and items that PCs use. One cannot say that the game was not designed around facilitating PvP combat while players face powerful NPCs sporting the exact same races, classes, feats, and spells as player characters. With the same point buy even (standard PF is 15 point buy for PCs and heroic NPCs).
3) Allowing evil alignments is already a bad idea, but having a mixed party is basically just saying to your table, "I'm going to start this campaign where you can all play whatever alignments you want with the full understanding that it will eventually explode when alignment-based disagreements and conflict rip the party apart." It just never works. No, not even then. Stop it. If you want to role-play as an evil jerk who does whatever he wants, go wreak some havoc in GTA where your antics are expected and aren't going to ruin the game for everyone.
Alignment has nothing to do with it. It's about disruptive players and their ability to play with a group. It's perfectly fine and possible to have Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good characters function together in the same party. This is more about the maturity and experience of the group, and the quality of their characters.
4) A clever GM would turn the story around so that him becoming a lich was the curse of some jealous evil deity. Suddenly instead of inter-party conflict, you have all the good guys trying to help the evil character find a cure for lichdom or, at least, conceal him from society.
Except, y'know, if the player's penultimate quest is to become a lich, cursing them with their ultimate goal isn't much of a curse unless you're adding some sort of dickery to the mix. Likewise, a lich isn't going to have trouble concealing their lichdom from the general populace. Firstly, the general populace can't do s*** to a lich, and secondly, you're a lich. You can just not let people know you're a lich (there are myriad ways of concealing your true nature).
In closing, you're pretty much wrong about everything in your post (and I can and will demonstrate if asked for clarification), and telling the dude that they should just end their campaign, while also saying that these things (and by proxy those who can accept these things) are playing the game wrong.
Nice.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also get the sense that a lot of people are very nonchalant about killing. It makes me feel a bit of an odd one out, given that my characters actively avoid killing if they don't have to. If they do kill someone, it generally means self defense or there was something funny going on (funny may include a mercy killing, or a dark-side moment where the normally well-adjusted character kills someone out of an act of revenge or sense of justice, such as killing someone who murdered your husband), and those moments aren't usually played for laughs.
Even my evil characters don't kill for the hell of it. Killing's a really big deal. They might kill more quickly than the good ones, but even then they're not psychotic.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also get the sense that a lot of people are very nonchalant about killing. It makes me feel a bit of an odd one out, given that my characters actively avoid killing if they don't have to. If they do kill someone, it generally means self defense or there was something funny going on (funny may include a mercy killing, or a dark-side moment where the normally well-adjusted character kills someone out of an act of revenge or sense of justice, such as killing someone who murdered your husband), and those moments aren't usually played for laughs.
Even my evil characters don't kill for the hell of it. Killing's a really big deal. They might kill more quickly than the good ones, but even then they're not psychotic.
Psychopathic. Psychosis is a description of certain conditions that lead to a separation from reality. Hallucinations, both auditory and visual, alterations in behavior and thought patterns etc. The Confusion spell mimics a rather extreme version of this.
Most people misused Psychotic to mean Psychopathic, which also doesn't actually mean killer. This misuse of terminology irks me. Not exclusively your fault, Pathfinder makes the same mistake when they made their madnesses section.
Incidentally I really dislike the madness' that Pathfinder has in it, much like I dislike Call of Cthulu and VtM's ones. Not jsut for terminology reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I said psychotic just meaning crazy. I'm aware of psychopathy, and know that psychopathy doesn't equate to killer (in much the same way gray doesn't equate to elephants :P).
I've played a few characters that were psychopaths but they still weren't killhappy. :)
|
|
you're pretty much wrong about everything in your post
So what you're saying, in a roundabout sort of way, is that this guy's group is about to have a great time with one of them turning into a lich in their high-level game, then being attacked by another PC?
I say we wait for a followup post and see how it all works out. Fingers crossed!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you're pretty much wrong about everything in your postSo what you're saying, in a roundabout sort of way, is that this guy's group is about to have a great time with one of them turning into a lich in their high-level game, then being attacked by another PC?
I say we wait for a followup post and see how it all works out. Fingers crossed!
your post was a condemnation of ways many people play not simply an assessment of how certain things are affecting one group... you told everyone to stop having badwrongfun.
Can we get back to killing liches?
This is good knowledge for me if I go up against a lich or if you know I use a lich as a dm. Yeah...yeah that's it. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I said psychotic just meaning crazy. I'm aware of psychopathy, and know that psychopathy doesn't equate to killer (in much the same way gray doesn't equate to elephants :P).
I've played a few characters that were psychopaths but they still weren't killhappy. :)
According to my fifth grade teacher I'm one. But I wouldn't take that very seriously. And fair enough. Still, plenty say one and mean another, and Paizo's version of psychotic makes you CE and plot against everyone around you and be a general misanthrope, and gives you a bonus to bluff to hide the fact you're not sane. Which does that sound more like? Mind you it doesn't make much sense to turn into a psychopath but magic etc.
But I'm off topic at this point.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
your post was a condemnation of ways many people play not simply an assessment of how certain things are affecting one group... you told everyone to stop having badwrongfun.
Definitely a condemnation of how many people play. You know why? It's because I'm trying to help, believe it or not.
Some days it feels like half the posts on this forum are people complaining about how bad their games are. Players fighting or stealing from each other, groups falling apart over alignment debates, shaky rules, compounding cheese from splat books, or just plain bad GMing.
While it's no sweat off my back if some group of teenagers falls apart halfway across the globe, it hurts the brand, the community, and the hobby itself. I'd guess that for every person like you or me, who have and will continue to play Pathfinder (and other RPGs) for a long time, there are a few people who tried it once and had such a terrible experience that they never came back.
Imagine you're a new player at this guy's table, giving Pathfinder a shot as your very first RPG. You sit down, expecting to have a grand adventure like you saw in Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones and you end up sitting through a four hour debate over what exactly "lawful good" means, followed by a crazy player-versus-player battle that, let's be honest, is probably not going to end with both players shaking hands and saying "good game!" Are you going to come back next weekend? Do you think the new player who suffered through that game session is going to go out and buy all the Pathfinder books? Attend a convention? Run his own game and recruit more new players?
The reason it sounds like that's not how it's supposed to be is because that's now how it's designed! Sure, maybe old school D&D ended up like that sometimes, but Pathfinder came along and fixed it. They inherited the 20-level system and nine alignments from D&D and what's the first thing they did when they built their own game world and organized system? Capped it at level 11 and banned evil alignments! In my opinion, that's the best part of PFS.
So yeah, maybe I am accusing this guy's group of having wrongbadfun. The difference here is that it's not coming from some smug sense of superiority; it's coming from three decades of gaming and years of watching post after post on these forums of people complaining about literally everything this guy's talking about. I'm not trying to prove I'm right or rain on anyone's parade. I just want people to have a good time, a positive experience with Pathfinder so they show up next week! So they buy the books and Paizo can stay in business to keep making more Pathfinder!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah, maybe I am accusing this guy's group of having wrongbadfun. The difference here is that it's not coming from some smug sense of superiority; it's coming from three decades of gaming and years of watching post after post on these forums of people complaining about literally everything this guy's talking about. I'm not trying to prove I'm right or rain on anyone's parade. I just want people to have a good time, a positive experience with Pathfinder so they show up next week! So they buy the books and Paizo can stay in business to keep making more Pathfinder!
you accused a lot of people of having badwrongfun by assuming that anecdotal evidence from these boards is appropriate to draw such conclusions as "A GM should never allow PvP fighting. Ever." and "Allowing evil alignments is already a bad idea, but having a mixed party... never works."
you weren't actually being helpful. you were being judgmental.
ANYWAY... OP, you should do what you gotta do to have fun without ruining the fun for everyone else. but honestly, this sounds like a problem amongst players more than characters. its a player that chooses to play evil in such a manner as to be more detrimental to his party than helpful. someone should talk to him about that. if he can reign that in, lichdom should be less problematic. if he can't, it doesn't really matter if he becomes a lich or not or if you kill the lich because the player will eventually make another character that doesn't play well with others.
Usually with something like this...killing 50 corrupted persons won't do. The requirements usually wind up requiring the sacrifice of a group of fairly innocent souls. Price of magic and all that.I'd like to point out that the lich must perform an act of great evil. However, that act is largely up in the air. Evil is defined as hurting, oppressing, or killing. It's very possible that a would-be lich might have to do something like kill twenty sentient creatures before their ritual or whatever to finalize the process.
Which would make you a bad person if you captured a bunch of brigands and used them for your ritual. However, it would be an act of great evil that most people wouldn't care about. In fact, some might even be happy that the brigands are gone.
And that's just if the GM is going with the fluffy lore in the Bestiary and not allowing liches that don't conform to the fluff.
I'm supposed to accept that on your authority, why exactly? The ritual is explicitly left up to the group in question.
Hell, in a number of campaign settings (including The Forgotten Realms), there are good-aligned liches, which implies that while the ritual may be unique to each lich, there are apparently alternatives to lichdom.
In fact, in Neverwinter Nights, there's a mage who became a lich using the instructions given to him by a balor. The balor instructed the lich to fireball a room full of children as part of the ritual, but later you find that the balor actually lied and that wasn't even needed to become a lich. He just tricked the mage for the lulz (the mage was a sorcerer IIRC, so he wasn't the brightest crayon in the box).
And if you don't consider murdering 50 people an act of great evil, well...I question your value of life, even unwanted or unwelcome life.
I'm really tired of people reaching into the Forgotten Realms lore. This is a Pathfinder thread and when it comes to lore the world we base our precedents on is Golarion, not Toril.
My "authority" if you must insist, which is the term you used, not I, comes from every example of Paizo's liches I've ever read in either novel, module, scenario, or AP background material. Undeath IS slanted towards evil in Golarion and in the rules text in general. You may not like that but that's the common context we operate under which any GM can homebrew as they see fit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really tired of people reaching into the Forgotten Realms lore. This is a Pathfinder thread and when it comes to lore the world we base our precedents on is Golarion, not Toril.
Well, there were also archliches in 3.5's Libris Mortis, which Pathfinder - THE GAME - is a derivative of. And, my point was that the ritual in question is left up to the group to determine.
In fact, the Lich entry itself, having re-checked it, doesn't even have to involve an evil act in the process. The "unspeakably evil" bit was from the 3.5 fluff, and much to my amusement is completely absent in the Pathfinder version of the lich.
Few creatures are more feared than the lich. The pinnacle of necromantic art, the lich is a spellcaster who has chosen to shed his life as a method to cheat death by becoming undead. While many who reach such heights of power stop at nothing to achieve immortality, the idea of becoming a lich is abhorrent to most creatures. The process involves the extraction of the spellcaster's life-force and its imprisonment in a specially prepared phylactery—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 quest to become a lich is a lengthy one. While construction of the magical phylactery to contain the spellcaster's soul is a critical component, a prospective lich must also learn the secrets of transferring his soul into the receptacle and of preparing his body for the transformation into undeath, neither of which are simple tasks. Further complicating the ritual is the fact that no two bodies or souls are exactly alike—a ritual that works for one spellcaster might simply kill another or drive him insane. The exact methods for each spellcaster's transformation are left to the GM's discretion, but should involve expenditures of hundreds of thousands of gold pieces, numerous deadly adventures, and a large number of difficult skill checks over the course of months, years, or decades.
The Lich's Phylactery
An integral part of becoming a lich is the creation of the phylactery in which the character stores his soul. The only way to get rid of a lich for sure is to destroy its phylactery. Unless its phylactery is located and destroyed, a lich can rejuvenate after it is killed (see Creating a Lich, below).Each lich must create its own phylactery by using the Craft Wondrous Item feat. The character must be able to cast spells and have a caster level of 11th or higher. The phylactery costs 120,000 gp to create and has a caster level equal to that of its creator at the time of creation.
The most common form of phylactery is a sealed metal box containing strips of parchment on which magical phrases have been transcribed. The box is Tiny and has 40 hit points, hardness 20, and a break DC of 40.
Other forms of phylacteries can exist, such as rings, amulets, or similar items.
The bare minimums mentioned to become a lich are, humorously, the bare minimums you must meet to take on the mechanical aspects of becoming a lich (expending hundreds of thousands of gold, making multiple difficult skill checks, and requiring months or longer, are all things that are required for creating the phylactery, as it costs 120,000 gp; requires a minimum of DC 18, which must be repeated for 120 days, plus the time it takes you to reach the point you can do it).
My "authority" if you must insist, which is the term you used, not I, comes from every example of Paizo's liches I've ever read in either novel, module, scenario, or AP background material. Undeath IS slanted towards evil in Golarion and in the rules text in general. You may not like that but that's the common context we operate under which any GM can homebrew as they see fit.
None of which are particularly compelling sources as Adventure Paths, novels, and the like frequently ignore the game itself, such as having things like skeletons spontaneously animate and go kill people at random (which skeletons do not do), and as JJ has noted, the emphasis on making most of the NPCs evil is so that it's more impactful when they don't.
So, as I said before, on what authority can you say that anything is outside the possibility for becoming a lich, given that the books actually say it's up to the GM and (upon re-inspection) doesn't actually require acts of evil in the first place?
Off the top of my head, I could see countless ways that this could be a party-friendly quest to become a lich. It might even be a really cool opportunity for the cleric in question to go on a spirit quest, perhaps to achieve a greater closeness to the Pallid Princess. Maybe the cleric has to venture into Urgathoa's dominion and learn the process from the goddess herself. Or perhaps kill themselves and go on an adventure where they follow in their goddess' footsteps and with the aid of their party escape the Boneyard as she did long ago.
It's got tons of potential, but it's only as difficult or as specific as the GM wishes it to be. It could just as easily be something that's done in the background assuming the rest is dealt with. However it seems the PC is already in the process of questing to become a lich, so the hook is there and maybe the GM will make use of it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also get the sense that a lot of people are very nonchalant about killing. It makes me feel a bit of an odd one out, given that my characters actively avoid killing if they don't have to. If they do kill someone, it generally means self defense or there was something funny going on (funny may include a mercy killing, or a dark-side moment where the normally well-adjusted character kills someone out of an act of revenge or sense of justice, such as killing someone who murdered your husband), and those moments aren't usually played for laughs.
Even my evil characters don't kill for the hell of it. Killing's a really big deal. They might kill more quickly than the good ones, but even then they're not psychotic.
Yes! This is how I play all my characters, really. My Neutral Evil shapeshifter, for instance, avoids needless killing because it's messy and unfortunate. She was actually having to hold her Good teammates back recently from a really pointless fight. And they say she's the bad one!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes! This is how I play all my characters, really. My Neutral Evil shapeshifter, for instance, avoids needless killing because it's messy and unfortunate. She was actually having to hold her Good teammates back recently from a really pointless fight. And they say she's the bad one!I also get the sense that a lot of people are very nonchalant about killing. It makes me feel a bit of an odd one out, given that my characters actively avoid killing if they don't have to. If they do kill someone, it generally means self defense or there was something funny going on (funny may include a mercy killing, or a dark-side moment where the normally well-adjusted character kills someone out of an act of revenge or sense of justice, such as killing someone who murdered your husband), and those moments aren't usually played for laughs.
Even my evil characters don't kill for the hell of it. Killing's a really big deal. They might kill more quickly than the good ones, but even then they're not psychotic.
I think a lot of people confuse evil with crazy, or good with superman zeal (or worse, lawful stupid or stupid good). Evil people have hopes, dreams, friends, family, lovers, etc. Even evil characters may have compunctions against certain kinds of evil. Ebenezer Scrooge, for example, had no qualms ruthlessly exploiting people for their last dime but he wasn't ever a murderer. He routinely hurt and oppressed people but he wasn't into killing (he's generally depicted as being mournful of the idea of Tiny Tim dying as a result of his being a douche).
Literally *any* alignment can be disruptive at the table because it's not the alignment that is disruptive, it is the character (and sometimes the player). That's why my rule as a GM is make a character that can play and cooperate with the party. I don't care what your alignment is, just make a character that can cohabit with other characters.
This applies for good-characters too. If your intent is to make a zealot who's going to attack the party's cleric for animating the corpse of a hydra your party killed, you need to GTFO too. If you want express distaste for it, or argue with the necromancer sometimes, or try to compromise somehow, go for it. That's fine drama and it's great times when you have characters that have distaste for something other PCs are doing. A great example would be the disgust and revulsion that you might see when another PC (such as a lizardfolk) begins eating the corpses of some humanoids slain in battle, only to have the halfling barf her lunch all over the place at the very notion.
That creates some fun times. Zealotry is less so, unless the character can reign it in or turn it into some sort of conflict to be resolved (emphasis on resolved) in a good way.
Another example would be my witch Agatha I was playing in Aratrok's Reign of Winter campaign a couple years ago. She was a creepy hedge witch who also ate people (not alive people, but in the frozen wastes, someone who spends the better part of their day in various animal forms isn't going to turn down a free lunch). However, the party had a Paladin in it as well (the Player's Guide for the campaign suggested that PCs consider being both witches AND witch hunters so...) who actively hated witches. Turns out his sister and he were kidnapped by a witch and while he was rescued he got to see his sister cooked and eaten in a witchy ritual and it left him scarred. At first she was indignant as to his apparent loathing of her for no reason, but when she found out why he was so enraged by her existence she tried to make it an easier prospect.
When she tried to break up a fight between an Irrisian witch of some authority (not yet knowing what was going on and trying to resolve matters without violence) he declared her a traitor in league with the evil witches (even though she did end up aiding them in taking out the bad witch) and attacked her. The player decided that he had been playing his Paladin a little too unhinged and opted to have him wander off into the wastes full of piss and vinegar. Ironically, it was actually Agatha that tried (immediately after he attacked her) to get him to reconsider and stay with them (the rest of the party wasn't particularly sad to see him go since he was prone to bouts of zealousness).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys, so, my GM is letting one of the other players become a lich, which yes, I know is a bad idea :(. With this in mind, I'm wanting to prepare for the inevitable conflict between my character (Currently a level nine wizard and level one Eldritch Knight) and his (Currently a level 10 Undead Lord Cleric) since my character is LG and he's going to be NE. He's been talking about how strong lich's are and how he'll be immune to all these things, so my question is, how should I prepare to fight him? Anything inside paizo is the material we're working with, no third party.
>I'm wanting to prepare for the inevitable conflict between my character and his since my character is LG and he's going to be NE.
You know, that is one of the reasons I dislike allignment so much. This mentality of "I am Good, he is Evil, therefore we could never have peace with each other. Let's do battle!". It is very simplistic and boring-there are different kinds of Evil and Good after all. It turns most moral decisions into a litmus test-"Is it Evil? If yes, use sword."
And it is one of the reasons I like stories that play on the idea so much.
Letting a PC go lich is a disaster waiting to happen!
Hey guys, so, my GM is letting one of the other players become a lich, which yes, I know is a bad idea :(. With this in mind, I'm wanting to prepare for the inevitable conflict between my character (Currently a level nine wizard and level one Eldritch Knight) and his (Currently a level 10 Undead Lord Cleric) since my character is LG and he's going to be NE. He's been talking about how strong lich's are and how he'll be immune to all these things, so my question is, how should I prepare to fight him? Anything inside paizo is the material we're working with, no third party.>I'm wanting to prepare for the inevitable conflict between my character and his since my character is LG and he's going to be NE.
You know, that is one of the reasons I dislike allignment so much. This mentality of "I am Good, he is Evil, therefore we could never have peace with each other. Let's do battle!". It is very simplistic and boring-there are different kinds of Evil and Good after all. It turns most moral decisions into a litmus test-"Is it Evil? If yes, use sword."
And it is one of the reasons I like stories that play on the idea so much.
If your proviso on killing a character is solely that he pings on the evil radar, the problem is in your roleplay. It shouldn't be "I'm going to kill Bob because he detects as evil." It should be more on the order of "I'm going to kill Bob before he sacrifices a village full of innocents." Or "I'm going to kill Bob because he's a threat to what I hold dear." The alignment system itself is not a problem. It's a problem when people forget it is a tool for roleplaying and wargaming and not the total summation of a character, nor should it be the total summation of your roleplay.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The alignment system itself is not a problem. It's a problem when people forget it is a tool for roleplaying and wargaming and not the total summation of a character, nor should it be the total summation of your roleplay.
this ignores that alignment influences how people think their characters are supposed to act, and that's not entirely the fault of players.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your proviso on killing a character is solely that he pings on the evil radar, the problem is in your roleplay. It shouldn't be "I'm going to kill Bob because he detects as evil." It should be more on the order of "I'm going to kill Bob before he sacrifices a village full of innocents." Or "I'm going to kill Bob because he's a threat to what I hold dear." The alignment system itself is not a problem. It's a problem when people forget it is a tool for roleplaying and wargaming and not the total summation of a character, nor should it be the total summation of your roleplay.Hey guys, so, my GM is letting one of the other players become a lich, which yes, I know is a bad idea :(. With this in mind, I'm wanting to prepare for the inevitable conflict between my character (Currently a level nine wizard and level one Eldritch Knight) and his (Currently a level 10 Undead Lord Cleric) since my character is LG and he's going to be NE. He's been talking about how strong lich's are and how he'll be immune to all these things, so my question is, how should I prepare to fight him? Anything inside paizo is the material we're working with, no third party.>I'm wanting to prepare for the inevitable conflict between my character and his since my character is LG and he's going to be NE.
You know, that is one of the reasons I dislike allignment so much. This mentality of "I am Good, he is Evil, therefore we could never have peace with each other. Let's do battle!". It is very simplistic and boring-there are different kinds of Evil and Good after all. It turns most moral decisions into a litmus test-"Is it Evil? If yes, use sword."
And it is one of the reasons I like stories that play on the idea so much.
>If your proviso on killing a character is solely that he pings on the evil radar, the problem is in your roleplay.
Quoting OP, once again:
>I'm wanting to prepare for the inevitable conflict between my character and his since my character is LG and he's going to be NE.
He later clarified the situation by explaining what exactly the lich in question was doing. However, the original post only references allignments. It does not say "Bob is killing innocents, therefore we are going to come into conflict". It says "Bob is going to ping as Evil, therefore we will come into conflict".
Letting a PC go lich is a disaster waiting to happen!
Why?
Going back to the OP.
It's probably enough to just out the player as a lich.
If the campaign is set in Golarion then having the character be a known lich will be devastating to his reputation.
Also, if as mentioned this doesn't occur until higher level, then don't worry much about it -- who knows if the game will even get there. If your character has any inkling of these plans then just keep an eye on his activities, cast the occasional divination to find out if the player is engaging in any nefarious activity, construction of the phylactery alone will take 60 to 120 days, so if you're going to intervene that would be the time to do it, hopefully with a few paladins from a church of your choice providing material assistance.
Letting a PC go lich is a disaster waiting to happen!Why?
Because the game is not really meant for lich PCs?
Because it reeks of "I want to win D&D" from a mile away?
Because unless the group and DM are very mature (and from what the OP said this doesn't seem the case at all) allowing a lich PC is going to be extremely distruptive?
Because, given the context, it seems something the player wants to do in order to gain an "edge" in the "inevitable" PvP slaughterfest to come?
Because EVEN IF the group is formed by very mature individuals the requirements for lichdom do not just make one "ping" as evil and give ample justification for good or even neutral allinged characters to act against the would be lich?
P.S.
I firmly believe a GM should know how to say no to some player's requests. Limits are a good thing, and just telling someone "sure! Go for lichdom!" Isn't a wise move. AT ALL
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gencon has a pvp tournament every year. Can u explain why thats bad and should stop?That's not even close to the same thing. Firstly, in such a tourney it's not like one gets randomly chosen to be a lich and the rest get to watch and get nothing.
Secondly, all players joining knowingly do so with the understanding they are trying to have pvp. Not go on an adventure or be a cohesive unit.
Don't compare it to this situation. They are nothing alike.
Why do people even maintain this kind of strawman argument like it's going to hold weight?
I'm not really sure why you think lichdom is an advantage in a fight. Its direct effects beyond immortality are extremely tame, it costs a huge chunk of resources (and possibly levels, depending on how you handle templates), and it opens you up to a bunch of dire vulnerabilities. It's mostly a fluff thing, since you can still be eliminated if you're defeated in a fight all the same, it's just a bit more expensive, and even if someone doesn't bother with that the effect of your lichdom was... a discount on the normal price for coming back. Woo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Mostly fluff" means not entirely. And still an advantage you wouldn't hand out to a single person at a table for a pvp setting. Also still means nothing because one type of game isn't the other so it isn't even worth bringing in as a strawman for this topic.
You can "it's mostly fluff" it all you want that doesn't solve the issue of the OP for his game.
Also since when is NA plus 5, immunity to 2 kinds of energy, a permanent paralyzing touch and 15 Dr "mostly fluff?"
It's not +5 natural armor, it's a +5 natural armor bonus. There's an important distinction there, since it doesn't stack with any polymorphing you do (and if you're a high level caster, you're probably polymorphing at least a little).
Cold and Electricity are fairly uncommon, HP damage (especially from spell effects) isn't a huge threat at higher levels, and if there's some persistent energy damage hazard you're worried about (like you're fighting in a storm cloud or something) there exist plenty of spells to obviate the issue.
It's DR 15/magic and bludgeoning- you might as well not even have it versus enemies that remotely matter.
The paralysis touch is melee and Charisma based. You are a spellcaster (and probably a wizard or cleric, at that).
I also wasn't responding to the OP (Ash has gone pretty in depth on that), I was responding to you. If you want to throw the word strawman around in every post, nobody said you get lichdom for nothing except for you- so are you discussing things with anyone in this thread, or an imaginary punching bag?
His character is a cleric, and therefore probably has a decent Charisma. Also, probably isn't polymorphing that often.
I feel like people are really trying to justify this because they're projecting their irritation at "PvP hate" and "evil PC hate". That stuff is all over the boards ("NEVER PLAY AN EVIL PC! NEVER ALLOW PVP! WRONNNNNGBAAAADFUNN"), and I hate it, too. That said, this seems like a fairly clear-cut case. The lich's player sounds like a problem and needs to be "dealt with" (talked to). The GM is "encouraging PvP", which sounds like a problem in and of itself.
In a game where PvP is heavily encouraged, someone trying to game the system by getting access to some very good templates goes up on my radar as somebody I'm not sure I want to play with. Maybe he's doing this in good faith. Maybe he sincerely plans to make the transformation a challenge that the other PCs can try to sabotage.
But with all his bragging about future immunities, I'm kind of wary, to say the least.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
His character is a cleric, and therefore probably has a decent Charisma. Also, probably isn't polymorphing that often.
If he's a cleric that has viewed Charisma as anything but a final afterthought, he's probably not a great cleric.
I feel like people are really trying to justify this because they're projecting their irritation at "PvP hate" and "evil PC hate". That stuff is all over the boards ("NEVER PLAY AN EVIL PC! NEVER ALLOW PVP! WRONNNNNGBAAAADFUNN"), and I hate it, too. That said, this seems like a fairly clear-cut case. The lich's player sounds like a problem and needs to be "dealt with" (talked to). The GM is "encouraging PvP", which sounds like a problem in and of itself.
The player being talked about in the thread isn't able to give his side of this. All we know according to the OP is that the OP intends to fight the cleric's player and the cleric's player is excited about becoming a lich.
In a game where PvP is heavily encouraged, someone trying to game the system by getting access to some very good templates goes up on my radar as somebody I'm not sure I want to play with. Maybe he's doing this in good faith. Maybe he sincerely plans to make the transformation a challenge that the other PCs can try to sabotage.
Do you have a problem with PCs trying to obtain or create magic items? Because there are heavy costs associated with becoming a lich, including a minimum of 120,000 gp and a level penalty, for gains that are relatively minor (you're down a set of spell levels for +2 Int, Wis, Cha, have an easily bypassed DR, gain immunity to a pair of rare elements at a point where resist energy 30 to any element is a trivial matter, gain an aura that isn't particularly great against anything you care about, and you gain a really awesome touch attack that requires you to be in melee. You gain undead immunities but in return you gain undead weaknesses which are harder to guard against).
But with all his bragging about future immunities, I'm kind of wary, to say the least.
Paladin Player: "I'm immune to fear, charms, disease, compulsions, have a difficult to penetrate DR, and practically immune to anything that has 'save negates', or 'reflex halves' because I crafted a ring of evasion. I'm essentially immune to every energy type because pearls of power are cheap and easily crafted and I have resist energy 30 on my spell list (which combined with my saves and such means I laugh at ancient wyrm breath). For a mere 20,250 gp I added absolute immunity to poison to my amulet of natural armor so I'm immune to poisons too. Because of my mercies, I'm practically immune to being sickened, staggered, cursed, blinded, deafened, or fatigued."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also since when is NA plus 5, immunity to 2 kinds of energy, a permanent paralyzing touch and 15 Dr "mostly fluff?"
Because at the levels that these things are available, they are trivial to overcome or don't offer much of an advantage. 30 points of energy resistance are the norm here since resist energy became a fire and forget thing levels ago, lasts entire dungeons, and reduces incoming damage by 30, and protection from energy absorbs 120 points of damage.
Because it requires a melee attack, requires a save, and is trumped by freedom of movement which is a staple at this level, and can be removed in a variety of ways. It's one of the lich's better tools though, especially for martially-oriented liches.
Because DR 15/magic and bludgeoning may as well say "DR 15/bludgeoning" at this level. Most everything aside from dumb beasts are going to be wielding magical weapons or have a way to make any random stick on the ground into a magical weapon. It wasn't a problem back at 1st level with skeletons and it's not a problem at 11th+ level with liches.
The real sweet things here are the base natural armor 5 (which doesn't stack with any existing natural armor or natural armor gained from spells) and the parlyzing touch (mostly because it's a neat trick).
Because becoming a lich means eating a +2 CR adjustment (you're now two levels behind your party in terms of experience progression). Because becoming a lich opens you up to a horde of problems that face undead, like disrupting weapons, undead bane weapons, hide from undead, halt undead, command undead, sunburst, sunray, etc. Much of which there is no effective defense against. Because it costs you at least 120,000 gp to create the phylactery (effectively making it the equivalent of a 240,000 gp magic item) which is roughly a 13th level character's entire WBL.
Liches are cool, but they aren't that formidable in combat. Their real selling point is the pseudo-immortality. Of course, that doesn't mean winning D&D, because immortality is cheap. Success requires more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, humorously, a lich's resistances to electricity, cold, and their DR, is more or less useless in a PvP environment (because other PCs will take you apart since they don't care about these things and have all the resources and guns to bring ruin to your face). These are benefits that are better in PvE situations like fighting Vrocks or resisting the weapons of peon soldiers.
Know what could be a really fun twist to suggest to the GM?
If he does try to tone down the ritual and uses rapists or devil souls or only eats a really Evil Baby (Half fiends, they exist) then suggest to the GM that he turn into an Arch-lich, not a lich.
Suddenly he has good alignment and is sat there wondering what on earth happened as Urgathoa declares he's no fun anymore and wanders off to go snort powdered dragon horn off the Maelstrom or whatever she does in her spare time.
Leaving him to find a new god and wonder how that happened.
That could be very amusing.
Totally useless for OP of course unless your GM likes the idea, but could be amusing.
I read on this and other sites where people tell how they played an evil character who worked well with a good party and how it was great fun, much more than I ever read where people tell how they played in a good party and another player played an evil character and it was great fun.
Not to say that many times having an evil character in your party can not be fun it just seams like it is almost always the player whos character was evil who recounts how great it was.
Alignment in games is neither a bad or good thing. It is often a rule to help make players think about what effects and/or motivates a characters views and actions in a world. In imagined worlds of fiction and the real world people do not act in a constant or consistent manner but they often do act close to a constant or consistent manner with deviations often caused in moments of stress caused by fear or unexpected reward. I should mention deviations caused by the effects of mind altering substances also.
Even the best role players often play simplified versions of fully real people due to the fact that we play for fun not to analyze every action of a fictional person.
And even the best role players do cheat on their character true personality for out of game party harmony, but heck in the real world we almost all cheat on our own true personality for harmony with our coworkers and perhaps even our family also. It is a rare person who says and acts on every thing she or he thinks of doing or saying.
Just some random thoughts.
I read on this and other sites where people tell how they played an evil character who worked well with a good party and how it was great fun, much more than I ever read where people tell how they played in a good party and another player played an evil character and it was great fun.
Not to say that many times having an evil character in your party can not be fun it just seams like it is almost always the player whos character was evil who recounts how great it was.
Let me broaden your pool then. The witch I mentioned, Agatha, was Neutral aligned with a heavy leaning towards Good. But she didn't get along with the party's Paladin because of zealotry. The Paladin ended up being the more evil one, and fell because of it, and she tried to convince him to stay, because she forgave him (seeing his anger being an extension of the trauma he faced as a child).
When I think of great evil characters I've been involved with in games, they weren't my own. One was a Lawful Evil Hellknight in the same party as my Paladin. Despite their moral differences, the two got along very well for the most part and actually ended up being close (almost romantically so) and trusted each other more than anyone else in the party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I make a point of reminding people of this when they decide to play a character of a specific alignment; your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around.
Edit: That said, I agree that you need a very compelling reason to not kill this guy/turn him in to the proper authorities considering he burned down an orphanage. I would do it just for being so mustache-twirlingly cliche.