As a player, I would feel the story is too forced, but maybe that's just me.
You could have an equally good story set upon someone trying to free the Whispering Tyrant from his prison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the Deck of Many Things can do it, it's just that it feels very forced. Especially getting it on his first draw. And especially for a Lich to take the risk at all.
Liches are typically incredibly intelligent beings who have eternity before them, it would make no sense for them to risk the negatives of the Deck of Many Things when they can gain the same things with less risk and time (which the lich has a potentially infinite amount of).
I was merely giving my opinion on the story, and personally I wouldn't care for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't need a 'good' goal to have 'good' PCs working for a lich.
Have the Flames card drawn next. The major Devil sets its followers onto the lich. In Golarion that means Cheliax starts sending out Hell Knights as well as the lil' minor devils running around trying not to be the BBEG's dinner. As well as anyone that has done a dirty deal to get a bit of power.
Have the PCs hired on to put the hurt on these soldiers of an oppressive LE regime, yada, yada, yada.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify one thing, while the Hellknights operate in Cheliax they do not work for Cheliax or even support House Thrune, although sometimes they have mutually aligned goals and will cooperate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like this idea for an adventure. Can you imagine if there's a paladin in the party?
Get up to the top of the tower, a lich king is released. SMITE EVIL!!!...and nothing happens. The confusion, the moral dilemma! If I were playing that paladin, I would have a conflict with the situation.
"He's a lich, yes, but he's not pinging as evil, and I can't smite him. But he's a LICH! He must be evil, only evil people can possibly become liches! He claims he's good and wants our help, how can I help someone who has done such evil in the past, and only a magic card makes him regret his actions?! What do I do?"
To me, THAT would be a blast to play.
I like the idea of NPCs that go against the normal aspect of their concept.
I'm playing in a game where the party met a drow who runs an orphanage. He's pure evil (our paladin pinged him), and just as conniving as any other drow. But he runs an orphanage and takes good care of the children under his roof. He uses them as a network of informants (think Varys's "little birds" from A Song of Ice and Fire), but actually desires no ill to befall his kids. He's a highly powerful drow who we wouldn't want to cross, but has never made a move against us, and thus we have never made a move against him. My character, a Slayer and an Aasimar, has befriended this Drow and gets along quite well with him. The drow has been a good source of information, and quests, and he's helped us get out of a few jams. It took me a few sessions to get over the fact that a drow ran an orphanage just for the sake of caring for the children. It was refreshing.
Needless to say, so long as you have good reasons that are't bullcrap for him being good, and have good goal (I agree with Pizza Lord), it could be a fun campaign. I like Pizza Lord's idea that maybe he was a gambling man in life and had a reason to take the risk.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the story very much :-)
Still ..
Spells that create Undead are Evil and almost every undead (even intelligent ones) are Evil. It will be incredibly complicated for the Lich to make sure none of its creations, especially intelligent ones, follow its Evil nature. Doubly so since he himself is now Chaotic
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't undead have the alignment of their creator? Meaning they're evil because an evil person made them? So if a good-aligned person made intelligent undead of a willing recently-deceased good-aligned person, wouldn't the subsequent undead retain its good alignment?I like the story very much :-)
Still ..
Spells that create Undead are Evil and almost every undead (even intelligent ones) are Evil. It will be incredibly complicated for the Lich to make sure none of its creations, especially intelligent ones, follow its Evil nature. Doubly so since he himself is now Chaotic
No, undead are evil in Pathfinder, with the occasional exception of ghosts. Sometimes intelligent undead are redeemed, but the transformation process of becoming undead changes your alignment to evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, undead are evil in Pathfinder, with the occasional exception of ghosts. Sometimes intelligent undead are redeemed, but the transformation process of becoming undead changes your alignment to evil.
Technically there aren't "good" Liches either, but the premise is a unique circumstance where one does exist. In this case, what makes the creation of undead evil? If it is a good-aligned character cramming a willing person's essence back into their own body so they can protect their living loved ones under their own free will, why would their natures automatically become evil?
Is it like the dark side of the Force in Star Wars? Even some Jedi use the dark side as part of a greater understanding of the Force. I think what is actually being done and what it is being used for would have an affect on what alignment of undead is created. If the process doesn't involve any sort of pact with an evil being, and doesn't require a blood sacrifice or some other overtly evil act, and isn't being used to bring harm/destruction to any innocents, why would the spell itself be considered evil.
Because the spell says so ?
Because the RAW say so ?
Because the gods say so ?
The cycle of souls through life and death sustains Creation. Pharasma is the caretaker of this cycle. She seeks the destruction of undead because each undead in existence weakens the cycle of souls and puts the whole of Creation a little more at risk of dissolution
Putting a willing dead soul back in its body already exists as a spell. It is called Raise Dead
Why would people even use it if they could come back as themselves except with all the benefits of undeath ?
Your CG Lich is already a very big exception to the rules. It already makes things different and quite interesting by itself. Why create another and even greater exception with the creation of non-Evil undead ? That stretches the suspension of disbelief too far IMO
Actually I think it better to keep created undead Evil and have your Lich endlessly frustrated by his inability to overcome this failing of Necromancy. It could even tempt him to go back to its Evil ways
Maybe the Lich could hire PCs to squash a plague of recently created undead that are in fact the results of its first failed attempts at creating non-Evil undead :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neat idea!
Super cool!
As an aside, you may want to consider treating each body (either fleshy or bone-only) with an unguent of timelessness - not only does it last longer and smell fresher, it also looks better and is just plain respectful!
Of course, putting them into full plate is a solid idea, and one idea for how to make that work is to wrap them first in padded armor, then insert them in full plate - this does nothing, mechanically, it just shields them and the plate from constant clanking (and also, I suppose, give them a back-up, just in case the full plate is sundered).
The way Paizo has portrayed undeath, as a vague generality, is that it can only be achieved by extremely powerful (generally negative) emotions that allow the soul to escape back through the negative energy plane, which often corrupt it. Even if the soul isn't corrupted, they often become phantoms instead of true undead.
There are lots of variations, of course, and the prana ghost blurs the line further, not to mention how Paizo has published two (or three) majorly non-evil ghosts (in fact, both are good) in two different APs, and once even a lawful good vampire (though they warned the situation was short-lived).
Also, there is something within the spell itself - the animate dead spells and both create undead spells - that is fundamentally evil.
It's worth noting that there was once a kind of necromancer - an oracle with the juju mystery (originally published in the Serpent's Skull AP) - who could (in theory) create non-evil undead; a Juju oracle needed a specific revelation - "spirit vessels" - to accomplish the task, however. That was (most distressingly, in my opinion) retconned* into the "new" spirit-vessels which, frankly, is entirely uninteresting.
*
This would work in the Eberron campaign. The elves in that setting have deathless leaders.
Eberron had awesome alternatives for all sorts of stuff.
I miss Eberron.
Oof! Ninja'd me while I was waiting for my abhorrently slow internet!
Here is someone's best attempt to convert it to pathfinder. Do note the following caveats:
- in the original, an undying soldier was basically a good-aligned positive-energy variant of a zombie with the original creature's mind; there was no "undying wizard" (I haven't even looked at those stats)
- in the original, the undying in general were weak to a particular material (called Targath) that actually was healthy for the living (it was left a mystery in-setting for why this might be the case)
- in 3.5 creatures had a particular "advancement" track, i.e. a bear might get three more hit dice, then become large for six hit dice, and couldn't progress farther (at least, not as a bear). Thus, in Eberron (which was 3.5), the advancement track for an undying soldier brought it right up to the cusp of an undying counselor, who, in turn, went right up to the cusp of an undying chancellor. Each of these were unique creatures, but the implication seemed clear, if split: either a) an undying soldier could never be as powerful as an undying counselor/etc., or b) after a certain "height" of power, an undying creature may well transition to the next higher stage (which is implied to be the only way chancellors come about, since you can't make them).
- in 3.5, they were powered by positive energy, and so were vulnerable to negative energy.
- the original spells (create deathless and create greater deathless) were exclusively available through the Deathless cleric domain - the only way of creating them at all.
- Eberron is a phenomenally awesome setting (except for its heterodoxy of ret-conning its own statements, when it comes to gem dragons) and is thoroughly worth checking out! (From what I hear, the novels are lackluster. I do not have experience with them, however, so I can't say from first-hand experience!)
Anyway...
Another possibility, is using his necromancy research to functionally create the obitu - a third-party PC race created by Alluria publishing (well worth checking out, by the way!).
There is one other non-evil Paizo-official alternative to animate dead, however, and it still even has "animate" in the name...!
It even fits similar uses - see the description from the Bestiary:
The skeleton locked within rattles as this animated cage lurches forward on chain legs in search of new prisoners.
If that description isn't enough (it wouldn't be for me), then take a look at the attendant artwork - that skeleton is clearly not a collapsed skeleton rattling freely around - it is, in fact, animated inside its own animate cage! Plus, check out the Haunted flaw - it grants you an extra CP and makes perfect sense in-context!
This is not without its own pitfalls, however, as making permanent animated objects (via the permanency spell) is all very well and good, but they're just not as ubiquitous in utility, and are one dispel magic away from being back in the ground.
That said, it's certainly not the only way. By taking the Craft Construct, someone with the animate objects spell could be up to all sorts of permanent constructions! This has a further benefit over the other in that it links it back to necromancy - check out the specific "bioconstruct" modifications, allowing for preserved hearts and brains from the original folks to be put back into use.
If you're curious, it makes excellent sense for a necromancer to have the Craft Construct: he's just changing the way he deals with the things. Instead of making the bone, carrion, flesh, fossil, marrowstone, mummy, or witch-doll golems like he used to, he's now making whatever the heck these things are!
The major problem, of course, would be getting the thing its old intelligence back. Fortunately, we have a workaround: intelligent items! What's that, you say? "That doesn't make sense!" you say?
Consider:
Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise.
... and...
these items think and feel the same way characters do and should be treated as NPCs[/b].
- constructs are creatures
- intelligent magic items are creatures- intelligent magic items are treated as constructs
- intelligent items are treated as NPCs...
-> hence!
Even if you don't think that it makes sense to apply intelligence to a construct that way via the rules, there are two possible methods: the ego check, and, of course, apparent master (or more powerful spells).
The idea, in this case, would be for the would-be sentience/mind/etc. to utilize its power over the construct in question to "take charge" so to speak - putting the soul back into the body. In the case of an ego check, the item just takes over - the original construct doesn't do anything, after all (it's mindless), so the ego check just succeeds (especially since the whatever-it-is was made just for this purpose) and you've got your old dead folks back in charge of their own (re)animated bodies. The apparent master route do exactly what they say - giving the item control of the animated object its placed onto/bonded with (also note that there are a lot of potential drawbacks for cost-reduction that synch smoothly with making intelligent items associated with this stuff; things like, "it only works on this one particular corpse and no other" or whatnot).
I wouldn't require the latter, but it may make more sense to you. Heck, if you want, simply have that part of the original crafting requirements and just have it auto-succeed anyway instead of making that actual spell effect.
If you're curious about how "legit" such a concept is for bringing back the dead and putting them in charge of their own body, Eberron, once again, comes to our rescue: it has a published intelligent item that was believed to be (by the owner of said item) the mind/spirit of her own deceased horse (even though the item was sentient). So there is published precedent!
But, presupposing that solution doesn't work for you, we're not done, yet! Ignoring stuff like awaken or awaken construct* or any such spell, we have even more daggum options, with tons of RP potential for all of 'em!
First, let's talk templates!
- artificial intelligence: cyberpunk that guy back to life!
- augmented creature: note the non-sci-fi possibilities (if that floats your boat)
- dread zombie: okay, by this point, I've just given up on constructs-only and gone back to undead! XD
- haunted construct: like the animated objects thing, only better!
- haunted one: have whatever it is (undead or construct) haunted by... itself!
- lifespark construct: I mean, it's literally built in there for you!
- skeletal champion: I mean, it's basically what you're asking for, now!
- tulpa: both sad and interesting - he brings them back to life by dreaming them into existence (and must maintain their existence by contemplating them, literally giving new life to his past victims by considering them constantly)
- juju zombie (still the best zombie)
... and it's here that I just kind of run out of ideas and/or forget the other ones I had not too long ago. XD
Oops!
(I'd started this while waiting for the rest of my family to wake up so I could help them out the door as fast as possible. Slow internet is slooooowwwwwwww, though, and it took me a few of hours instead of much less than that. XD)
*
Two things I forgot to mention:
- one: construct creation is suuuuuuuuper expensive, comparatively; like you thought a phylactery was expensive?! Psssccchhaaaawww: nope!
- two: you can make the "magic item" that possesses/makes sentient the guardian either the armor itself, or some sort of magic tattoo (see the inscribe magic tattoo feat) that basically just gives the thing its previous intelligence (maybe requiring the preserved brain or something?) and/or memories. The armor is more cost effective (it's like putting them in life suits) while the tattoo is more thematic (think of the original golem legend).
There is the Iroran mummy. They are lawful neutral. I don't recall where the write up is for them.
I only ever heard of it from running that one adventure. When I'm not on my phone if I have the time I should look it up and link it! In the meantime you could check out either d20pfsrd.com or archivesofnethys.com!
There is the Iroran mummy. They are lawful neutral. I don't recall where the write up is for them.I only ever heard of it from running that one adventure. When I'm not on my phone if I have the time I should look it up and link it! In the meantime you could check out either d20pfsrd.com or archivesofnethys.com!
So... yeah, I couldn't find this anywhere, but the actual adventure... and then I realized that it was referenced in an AP! ... but only in the most vague of ways (it's mentioned in an article in the back, but tells you to reference the Bestiary).
So... spoilers below!
Some enlightened members of the faith, particularly monks, are so aware of their own bodily processes that they can sense their approaching death from old age, knowing in advance the day or even the hour they will pass. A few of these wise folk employ a method of self-mummification, using a diet of poisonous nuts and teas that prevents their corpses from putrefying after death. These masters of life and death leave behind their bodies to watch over Irori’s temples, and in some cases these bodies animate as mummies to defend the temple against threads. These dried but perfectly preserved Iroran mummies are extraordinarily rare, and their magical attacks have no effect on Irori’s worshipers, but otherwise they have nearly the same statistics as normal mummies.
And then... the only actual appearance I know of!
<spoiler for scene> sits a mummified figure clad in white robes, with a braid of black hair circling its neck like an adornment. This figure is a rarity—a nonevil form of undead known as an Iroran mummy. The creature is <name>, the last abbot to serve the monastery. After <doing stuff spoiler>, he buried the dead monks, then underwent a strange process in which he consumed poisonous nuts and teas to preserve his flesh after death, taking on eternal unlife as a form of penance.
More spoiler than spoiler:When a PC approaches the chair, the mummy looks up, staring at the oncoming player with dead eyes. He responds to no questions, doing nothing more than holding up his right hand, signaling the PCs to halt. If an obvious devotee of Irori is present, <name> holds forth <plot item> and whispers the words “I, <name>, have waited for you. You must finish what I could not. <do the thing>. <do the other thing>. Return honor to this humble monastery.” At that, the mummy crumbles away to dust.If no worshipers of Irori are present, <name> stands and whispers, “I, <name>, know not your convictions. I must know whether you possess the aptitude to <do the thing>.” He attacks, knowing that if he’s defeated, these intruders have a chance to do as he hopes.
In terms of stat-block, it's:
Full Statblock!:<NAME>, CR 8 (XP 4,800) <gender> Iroran mummy <class> <lvl>
LN Medium undead
Init +6; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +24 DEFENSE
AC 26, touch 16, flat-footed 24 (+2 Dex, +1 monk, +3 Wis, +10 natural)
hp 106 (12d8+52)
Fort +10, Ref +10, Will +15; +2 vs. enchantments
Defensive Abilities evasion; DR 5/—; Immune undead traits
Weaknesses vulnerable to fire
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft.
Melee flurry of blows +17/+17/+12 (1d8+9), +1 slam +18 (1d8+9 plus mummy rot)
Special Attacks flurry of blows, stunning fist (6/day, DC 15)
TACTICS
During Combat
Morale
STATISTICS
Str 26, Dex 14, Con —, Int 10, Wis 17, Cha 18
Base Atk +9; CMB +18; CMD 33
Feats Combat Reflexes, Deflect Arrows, Improved Initiative, Improved Unarmed Strike, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Power Attack, Skill Focus (Perception), Stunning Fist, Vital Strike
Skills Acrobatics +17 (+21 when jumping), Intimidate +19, Perception +24, Sense Motive +18
Languages Common, Tien
SQ fast movement, ki pool (5 points, magic), maneuver training, slow fall 20 ft.
Gear amulet of mighty fists +1, belt of giant strength +2, <macguffin>
Compare that to an actual mummy, and you'll notice some differences - no aura of despair, stat array is shifted up (because he has class levels, he gets a +4/+4/+2/+2/+0/-2 adjustment (), and he has four levels, so there's an extra +1 added to... charisma, naturally); they dropped the Toughness and Weapon Focus feats to give him other things, and dropped the Stealth skill for other things. Then, of course, he has four monk levels. They didn't mention mummy rot in his special attacks (I at first wrote that in there, but then removed it) even though it's still part of his slam stat block.
Anyway, I posted the full thing, as I did, to give you an idea for how, exactly, it was used in-context, and how the actual encounter with it went down.
Hope that helps!
Quasi-edit: hrmmmm... I just noticed that the stats are not +4/+4/+2/+2/+0/-2 different - they're +4/+4/+2/+2/+2/~ different - they added an extra +2 instead of subtracting a 2 or adding only 0 anywhere. Hrm... I'unno.
I want to qualify this.
Paizo does not, in fact, control third party sites, and it is in the interest of their own sanity to refuse responsibility for control - after all, they literally can't control the other sites.
The thing that frustrates, however, is that such denial indicates that there is no reconciliation with the concept that they certainly influence others by way of how they choose to frame and present their products.
When the argument is, "You can still totally use the old one; we haven't invalidated that." but that's followed with, "But we're literally printing something new that totally isn't the original ability, even though it has the same name, and will never reference the original in print again." they have, in effect, invalidated the original one.
To be clear, no one has ever - to the best of my knowledge - said the second thing; and definitely not directly.
But it would be exceptionally confusing to reference older materials they've printed instead of newer materials, and entirely against every trend that Paizo has ever shown.
So, of course, any third party company making any sort of reasonable attempt at keeping up with Paizo (by way of the OGL and similar elements) is going to go with the new one in lieu of the old - while Paizo very literally does not control them, it is exceedingly apparent that it is ridiculous to thus indicate that the original isn't invalidated. The original is invalidate. It is intentionally invalidated. The new one was printed for the express purpose of invalidating the original.
Now, that said, I also want to clarify: no matter who it was that said these things - I still hold respect for them and their words. They are not bad people, and I do not consider them liars. I disagree - verbally and directly - with the suggestion it isn't on Paizo. I disagree with the idea that the first hasn't been invalidated and disagree with the concept that it opens up more options.
PF Developers have often noted that Pathfinder is not a game of technicalities (despite what the rules forum tends to think), but of conversational tone. In the latter, there is every reason to go forward with the understanding that the former has been invalidated.
But again, I made this post to clarify: I love Paizo. Their employees. And the way they interact with us. I really, really appreciate it.
With the recent drama (that I just became aware of; yeah, I'm a little slow) in another thread, elsewhere, I wanted to clarify both why I feel what I do, and how I feel differently from otherwise official notes on the matter.
I was disappointed, to say the least. I do not like the new version, and the old one is now extremely hard to find (as it was predicted it would be) and hard to publish. That also disappoints me, greatly, as a fan. But it's just one of the many specific instances where the tastes of those who currently work at Paizo and my tastes differ in broad-strokes preferences. And that's actually totally okay.
I'm sure there are those out there that at least like the new juju - I don't, and it makes it harder to have threads like these seen as valid options now that it's hard to come by, but I'm absolutely certain others do. And, I suppose, that makes it worthwhile.