| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 26 Aug 2015 : 13:14:12
I was a bit suprised after skipping through the 5e Monster Manual with the Lich and Demilich changes.
Liches now need to feed their phylacteries souls to keep its magic working that preserves his undead body and consciousness. It also states that the soul of the lich will be drawn to the phylactery after creating it and will stay there until it is destroyed. I find that very confusing because it indicates that you can destroy the lich by destroying his phylactery while the lich is still running around. In earlier editions the soul only traveled to the phylactery when the lich was destroyed, until he reformed again. So if you destroyed his phylactery while the lich is still active he could just create a new one. But later the 5e MM says that the destruction of a phylactery only means the possibility to the lichs eternal dead too. Where does the soul goes in this situation?
But the most problems I have with the demilich changes. Because now demiliches are not some kind of even more powerfull lich but the state that happens when a lich doesn't feed souls to its phylactery where he slowly starts to wither away until he is completly destroyed. I don't see any reasons for such a drastic change. What do you guys think? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 03 Sep 2015 : 14:18:30
Maybe all the good points here will be seen by some WOTC guy and taken into consideration when they come up with rules for creating liches eventually  |
| Cyrinishad |
Posted - 03 Sep 2015 : 02:55:13
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrinishad
Well, an argument could be made that Fiends & Celestials & Petitioners could serve as alternate sources of energy... Since, they're all theoretically entities that have metamorphisised out of souls/larvae.
Making the Liches have a mechanism that is generally "evil" to sustain themselves is however consistent with the overall characterization that Necromancy/Undead are "evil"... considering they've changed Healing Spells to be Evocation instead of Necromancy in the PHB.
I don't think it had to be something evil, though. Why could they not do something like sacrifice magical items, or perhaps redo the process that they used to gain undeath?
I get that most liches are evil, but it's not necessarily a malicious, no concern about hurting others type of evil... Some D&D lore has even explicitly stated that it's not necessary to be evil to become undead, but that undeath has a tendency to disconnect a person from the world and push them towards evil.
A lich that wasn't evil to begin with, or that wasn't overly evil originally, may be more inclined to use some method of renewal that doesn't involve a soul.
Oh, I'm with you there Wooly... I was just saying that they were being consistent with the baseline presentation of the Undead & Necromancy, in the core books. I'm totally not pushing a good/evil perspective, or that this is the right way or wrong way or anything like that.
My general sense of things is that energy is just energy. I don't think the Monster Manual is redefining all previous variations of Lichdom, it's just presenting the "generic evil lich" that exists at the end of "generic dungeon". It makes sense that a "generic evil lich" would use souls as their energy source, since they are the cornerstone energy resource in the planes.
(I am glad though that there is more lore that supports the concept).
...Another thought that occured to me is that perhaps creating a stable Portal to either the Positive or Negative Energy Plane, could enable a Lich to siphon the requisite energy on a regular basis. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 03 Sep 2015 : 02:03:10
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrinishad
Well, an argument could be made that Fiends & Celestials & Petitioners could serve as alternate sources of energy... Since, they're all theoretically entities that have metamorphisised out of souls/larvae.
Making the Liches have a mechanism that is generally "evil" to sustain themselves is however consistent with the overall characterization that Necromancy/Undead are "evil"... considering they've changed Healing Spells to be Evocation instead of Necromancy in the PHB.
I don't think it had to be something evil, though. Why could they not do something like sacrifice magical items, or perhaps redo the process that they used to gain undeath?
I get that most liches are evil, but it's not necessarily a malicious, no concern about hurting others type of evil... Some D&D lore has even explicitly stated that it's not necessary to be evil to become undead, but that undeath has a tendency to disconnect a person from the world and push them towards evil.
A lich that wasn't evil to begin with, or that wasn't overly evil originally, may be more inclined to use some method of renewal that doesn't involve a soul.
That being said, it should also be remembered that magic is sympathetic... so fire magic will tend to be better fueled by fiery things... undeath magic will be better fueled by soul energy. Still, an alternate energy resource should be doable (just as a fire spell fueled by lightning makes sense). Similarly, as you say sacrificing magic items should work.... but maybe they work better if they are necromantic magic items, etc.... |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 03 Sep 2015 : 01:57:42
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
In my opinion, an argument can be made for liches to have a need to periodically "replenish" the magic that keeps them up and kicking.
I'm just not cool with the larvae/soul thing being the only way to do that.
See my earlier ideas for alternate lich names/types. People were saying they'd like to see a "good" lich besides the archlich. The "devalich" (name not important... but I did like that devalich and devilich might be confused) might keep their phylactery energized by drawing upon powerful celestial resources (even if they're arcane casters). This ultimately might be soul energy, as petitioners meld with the celestial planes or their deity, but from a gameplay standpoint it could be seen as "a flower from the bush of life" or "water from the celestial pools of rejuvenation", etc..... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Sep 2015 : 01:11:34
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrinishad
Well, an argument could be made that Fiends & Celestials & Petitioners could serve as alternate sources of energy... Since, they're all theoretically entities that have metamorphisised out of souls/larvae.
Making the Liches have a mechanism that is generally "evil" to sustain themselves is however consistent with the overall characterization that Necromancy/Undead are "evil"... considering they've changed Healing Spells to be Evocation instead of Necromancy in the PHB.
I don't think it had to be something evil, though. Why could they not do something like sacrifice magical items, or perhaps redo the process that they used to gain undeath?
I get that most liches are evil, but it's not necessarily a malicious, no concern about hurting others type of evil... Some D&D lore has even explicitly stated that it's not necessary to be evil to become undead, but that undeath has a tendency to disconnect a person from the world and push them towards evil.
A lich that wasn't evil to begin with, or that wasn't overly evil originally, may be more inclined to use some method of renewal that doesn't involve a soul. |
| Cyrinishad |
Posted - 02 Sep 2015 : 23:32:57
Well, an argument could be made that Fiends & Celestials & Petitioners could serve as alternate sources of energy... Since, they're all theoretically entities that have metamorphisised out of souls/larvae.
Making the Liches have a mechanism that is generally "evil" to sustain themselves is however consistent with the overall characterization that Necromancy/Undead are "evil"... considering they've changed Healing Spells to be Evocation instead of Necromancy in the PHB. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Sep 2015 : 18:38:59
In my opinion, an argument can be made for liches to have a need to periodically "replenish" the magic that keeps them up and kicking.
I'm just not cool with the larvae/soul thing being the only way to do that. |
| Venomus |
Posted - 02 Sep 2015 : 18:31:47
quote:
Ummm, to live more than say 80 years.... that's why
Yeah, but it shouldn't work that way.
I've always seen liches as one step under deities. Mortal who didn't want to die so hard that they're created means to become immortal without achieving apotheosis of goodhood.
One ritual and, bam - not needing to worry for such trivialties as seeking some kind of fuel for themselves for millenia. Like a infinite powerplant/nexus/core of energy inside them (seen as the cool glowy light in liches eye sockets). Even gods die without worship. But liches? If you don't destroy his philactery they can go without signs of madness or age technically forever. Kill a paladin then sit on a throne for a hundred years or so and thinking only minutes have passed and being mildly amused that the paladin's corpse is nothing more than bones. You just killed him moments ago...right?
The soul sucking or larvae consumption just makes them... a "throw a d20 for a monster at the end of the crypt/dungeon". A con thrown so they need to re-fuel. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 02 Sep 2015 : 03:14:46
It's always curious when people decide to respond to earlier posts in a thread, without first reading the latter parts of the thread.
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 02 Sep 2015 : 03:00:23
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
To each their own, but as for the argument concerning vampirism vs. lichdom I'll say this: Perhaps the reason for lichdom (and consuming souls rather than blood) could be that consuming the soul maintains the lich's strength for far longer than blood does for the vampire. This would allow the lich to continue its studies without the burden of having to feast on blood on a nightly (or near nightly) basis.
Just a thought.
Earlier you had mentioned seeing that liches fed on larvae (and I'm assuming you meant soul larvae) and I was going to ask you if you remembered the source? I've been delving around and haven't seen it yet (though I have seen some interesting other stuff, like the very early Dragon magazine article on how to build a lich).
Although I dislike the idea, it's mainly because it changes my long-standing perception of how liches operate, their motivations, and their needs. That said, I do agree that blood is certainly less "packed" with energy than a soul would be. And there are creatures that do use souls for nourishment - but I tend to see them as much more active, more of a direct threat than a lich.
1st edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, page 57
"This is the place where Azimer has been killing larvae brought to him by summoned demons and night hags, which helps him to maintain his lichhood (though he no longer sees himself as a lich at all)."
1st edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, page 61
"Though he still summons night hags and demons to collect larvae, enabling him to maintain his existence as a lich, he now believes he is doing this in order to achieve godhood (which will never occur)."
Planescape Monstrous Compendium I, Larva entry in 2nd edition
"Powerful liches feed on larval energies to maintain their undead immortality, and in return the liches destroy creatures who refuse to trade with the hags. The complex bartering system is sustained by the growing numbers of lower planar inhabitants." |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 02 Sep 2015 : 02:46:20
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
First off, I already demonstrated how the 'quality' of a soul can affect the 'nutritional value' ( ) it provides. In my example, a level 25 character would provide a lich with enough energy to sustain itself for a little over 52 years.
Given that the new rules don't seem to specify a mathematical formula for sustenance, 52 years makes as much sense as 50 or 75 or 200.
quote:
Second, I already explained that if they are changing 'demilich' because the name is misleading, then they need to change the meaning of 'archlich' as well. The archlich should NOT be 'a good lich', it should be a superior lich.
Previous lore doesn't suggest any general sense of superiority for an archlich, just that they're different in terms of alignment.
This would be like saying, "since they broke one thing that didn't need fixing" that they should also break all the related concepts that went with the original.
quote:
I really do LOVE the idea of liches 'feeding' on life energy
Personally, I really don't like the idea. Classically, and in previous lore (and has been stated by another poster), a lich's goal is to retreat from mortal affairs and the needs of the flesh. Demiliches trapped and destroyed souls out of malice, for daring to invade their retreat. Liches really just wanted to study and gain more power and knowledge. It really set them apart from other undead, whether it was for duty (archliches) or personal gain (regular liches).
Fortunately, this is a game where we get to ignore rules we dislike, rather than being required to embrace formulaic requirements.
No, classically, they required larvae and traded with hags for them. Also, larvae don't require tending, so they could really stack up a bunch of them and use them as necessary if they desperately needed to stay in hiding for centuries. However, I can see even a lich in hiding being able to transport themselves for a day to where the plane where night hags are, arrange to buy some larvae, and come back. Its not some horribly game changing thing. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 02 Sep 2015 : 02:41:19
quote:
Originally posted by Venomus
quote:
The need to feed on souls gives Liches a reason to be engaged in the game-world, just like Vampires.
Well wasn't that the purpose in becoming a lich to be "immortal" without a need for sustenance from outher sources? Eternity for gaining knowledge but at a price of being a skeleton (without some valuable ekhm, fleshy bits).
If liches now need to feed souls then what is the point in becoming one? Every necromancer should instead invest in vampiredom. If you have to feed like mortals why not have all your body intact(with reproductive organs!) and look young. Souls, blood what's the difference,eh? Even better, you can drink without killing people (eating souls is...kinda terminal for health).
It's kinda sad becouse i always loved the idea of liches (in D&D and Warhammer especially) and seeing that a powerhouse like Larloch that just wants to be left alone must actively collect souls is...kinda lame. It just does't feel right for the mythology...
Ummm, to live more than say 80 years.... that's why |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 02 Sep 2015 : 02:37:03
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
More of my Lich/Soul Cage lore...
Hoarcruxes:
It IS possible for a Lich (or other creatures capable of 'magic jarring' souls) to split their 'essence' (soul) into more then one piece. Such was the habit of the divine liches (mummies) created by pharonic priests (those Canopic Jars). In some settings these are known as 'Hoarcruxes, in others, 'soul jars' or 'soul cages'. It all amounts to the same thing. One can theoretically split one's soul into as many shards as they wish, based upon their personal power (one shard per level). In fact, this is the mechanism behind the (old school) level-draining undead. They are basically stealing a shard for themselves.
The upside to doing this is that you have more pieces to hide, and there for more ways to 'come back' after being killed. one must destroy every last shard to make sure death is complete. For example, the Lich Tan Chin was thought to be destroyed when the Ebony Atifacts were dealt with. However*, one of the artifacts was a counterfeit, and the Lich was able to return sometime after the heroes defeated him.
The downside is that with more pieces, there are more chances for people to find - and destroy - pieces of one's soul. Also, the ore times a soul is split, the weaker each piece becomes, and the easier to destroy. Strangely - through some 'cosmic mechanism', when one creates another Horacrux (soul shard stored in a item one has gained affinity with - usually a personal belonging or even body part), the other pieces all become 'weaker', no matter the distance away. In that way, the pieces all must be of equal value (life energy). It is said that some beings - including a few Uberliches - have figured out ways to separate differing amounts of energy into different vessels, but there is no proof of this, and most sages scoff at the notion (but not Elminster, who refuses to speak at all on the mater). Another downside is that if a person were to find one Horacrux, it would lead them to the others, one way or another. Powerful magic could be used to turn it into a type of 'spiritual compass', or just a series of seemingly random events would lead one to the other pieces (more of that 'cosmic mechanism' - the pieces are trying to get back together). It is for these reasons that liches - and others who like to hide their souls - tend to avoid this tactic. If a phylactory is viewed as a weakness, then having a dozen would be viewed as having a dozen weaknesses.
Using Soul Shards:
Pieces of a soul (or an entire soul, in the case of larvae and manes) can be used to create magical artifacts, most especially self-aware ones. Sometimes this happens by accident, when a age puts too much of his/her life energy into a magical item, but most often it is done with purpose. A third mechanism is when a soul becomes attached to an existing item - this is how 'Legacy items' are created (sometimes amusingly referred to by scholars as 'accidental artifacts'). If you apply a piece of soul to a golem, you get a humunculus - it is a proto-soul (soul shard that can grow into a soul-seed) placed within a body fashioned by a mage (usually an alchemist or some form of artificer). After the death of the creator, these types of devices often become 'awakened' after a time. If the shard (in the item)is the only one left (Xvim & Bane?), then the shard's persona (soul) immediately activates and begins to think it IS the deceased personage. This may be what happened with Myrkul and the Crown of Horns. There are other nefarious uses for life energy (soul shards) as well, too many to get into in this work. I refer you to the many tomes dealing with fiends and other outsiders.
Undeath:
Outsiders can NOT be 'undead'. They aren't alive in the mortal sense to begin with. This includes gods, as well as fiends, celestials, etc. A god can take any form it wishes, but when it is not exerting any will to look different, it will revert to its 'default' form, which may be a lich or some other frm of intelligent undead. its just 'cosmetic'. Undeath requires the use of negative energy, which is anathema to positive (divine) energy. HOWEVER, as with anything else in the universe, there are always 'exceptions'. Things that have 'broken the rules' either by a powerful ritual going awry, or by some sort of wild magic surge because (potent) conflicting magic is being used at the same time. Of all the 'god liches' in the universe, Mellifleur is the only one known for sure to be truly 'undead'. It is said that at the exact moment he became a lich (the FIRST lich?), the adoration of his acolytes - all of whom which were consumed in the ritual - became 'worship', and at the precise second he attained lichdom, he attained godhood. the timing couldn't have been more perfect (some think it was on purpose). Orcus is another example of one that 'broke the rules', although how he managed to become something (undead) only a mortal can achieve is beyond anyone.
*This scenario is based upon the events in Blood Charge, but the ending of that module has been tweaked so that the heroes both won and lost, to better jibe with some of Brian James' later lore regarding Tan Chin (some of which is only quasi-canon, because it is in a core book). Thus, this was my 'fix' for how to mesh all of that together. Tan Chin later dies again... or does he? He has re-arisen so many times he has more lives then the Black Panther (a cat), his ancient nemesis. I don't think we've yet seen the last of him. 
Just a note, the god of liches, Mellifleur (now Velsharoon in FR) was known for having multiple phylacteries. Also, there was a feat in FR in order to do this. There was no lessening of power of the phylacteries, but that is a good idea.
|
| Eltheron |
Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 16:55:27
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Well GK beat me too it, but yes, those adventures (which appear in the OGB) are the primary source of my comment about larvae. I had forgotten about the Ninemen spell though. This makes me wonder: Does consuming a single larvae last as long as casting that spell? I would think so (or maybe last even longer than the spell). This means that the lich's needs are minimal and it can study for quite a long time before needing to consume another one.
Now I'm wondering how long a larvae stays 'fresh' enough to consume. Can a lich procure a batch of pickled larvae and consume them as needed? Or do they spoil (i.e. lose their efficacy) in a short period of time? If the former, then the lich could purchase a batch and spend decades (or even centuries) in its studies before needing to interrupt them to traffic in souls again. If the latter, well then he needs to interact with hags or whatever more often.
My guess, based on the fact that it seems Azimer summons hags/demons fairly often to bring him larvae (it's happened more than once, and how long has Azimer been undead?), is that they don't last as long as the Nulathoe's Ninemen spell. It doesn't say how long, but 777 years seems a long time for just one larvae.
Once a soul is transformed by the Abyss (and perhaps the Hells also) and has become a larvae, I'd imagine it's fairly stable if they're used as currency.
And here's an interesting tidbit: in the original AD&D Monster Manual, it notes that liches use larvae in order to maintain their undead status and powers (under the entry for larvae). So it's part of the AD&D core.
|
| Mirtek |
Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 15:32:26
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
First off, I already demonstrated how the 'quality' of a soul can affect the 'nutritional value' () it provides. In my example, a level 25 character would provide a lich with enough energy to sustain itself for a little over 52 years.
well, having to eat whats essentially a demigod twice a century doesn't look like a reliable diet 
I Actually Luke the larvae consuming AS a way out. A lich can do this quietly Form hi lair and only has to worry to not eat an already claimed larvae |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 10:45:59
Well GK beat me too it, but yes, those adventures (which appear in the OGB) are the primary source of my comment about larvae. I had forgotten about the Ninemen spell though. This makes me wonder: Does consuming a single larvae last as long as casting that spell? I would think so (or maybe last even longer than the spell). This means that the lich's needs are minimal and it can study for quite a long time before needing to consume another one.
Now I'm wondering how long a larvae stays 'fresh' enough to consume. Can a lich procure a batch of pickled larvae and consume them as needed? Or do they spoil (i.e. lose their efficacy) in a short period of time? If the former, then the lich could purchase a batch and spend decades (or even centuries) in its studies before needing to interrupt them to traffic in souls again. If the latter, well then he needs to interact with hags or whatever more often. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 04:04:30
quote:
Originally posted by Rymac
Predominantly it's from the adventure Lashan's Fall. However, Ed described liches that became liches through alternative means (which aren't described) in Ruins of Undermountain. Nester (sp?) is one of them that comes to mind, although is probably not the perfect example.
Interestingly, the lich Azimer in Lashan's Fall is seriously insane, and actually summons night hags and demons to harvest larvae to maintain his lichdom (though he believes it's because they'll eventually help him achieve godhood).
Although Nulathoe's Ninemen is detailed in a spellbook (right after the adventure of Lashan's Fall), it doesn't seem that Azimer has or uses the spell - though this could be buried somewhere in the adventure, I haven't seen it yet.
So far, the only source I've seen that says Nulathoe's Ninemen is Ref5. Might be in other places, though, not sure. But I've been bored today and spent quite a lot of time looking through old sources.
|
| Eltheron |
Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 03:45:08
quote:
Originally posted by Rymac
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Not at home and near my sources, but I suspect that comes from the Hall of the Beast Tamers adventure in Dragon #95/the Old Grey Box or REF3 The Lords of Darkness. I know the latter talks about a lich needing to cast "Nulathoe's Ninemen" on his/her phylactery periodically, so I suspect it's the former.
-- George Krashos
Predominantly it's from the adventure Lashan's Fall. However, Ed peppered liches that became liches (through alternative means which aren't described) in Ruins of Undermountain. Nester (sp?) is one of them that comes to mind, although is probably not the perfect example. Maybe one of those alternatives requires the sacrifice/consumption of souls or larvae?
Was Allokair (sp?) a traditional lich? I don't remember, although I'm guessing he was since he was among the featured undead in REF5 Lords of Darkness.
In Ref5, Allokair is statted up right before the very detailed "Becoming a Lich" process/description, so I'd argue he's probably a traditional lich.
Though really, I suppose an argument can be made that every lich is a unique lich.
|
| Rymac |
Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 03:36:42
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Not at home and near my sources, but I suspect that comes from the Hall of the Beast Tamers adventure in Dragon #95/the Old Grey Box or REF3 The Lords of Darkness. I know the latter talks about a lich needing to cast "Nulathoe's Ninemen" on his/her phylactery periodically, so I suspect it's the former.
-- George Krashos
Predominantly it's from the adventure Lashan's Fall. However, Ed described liches that became liches through alternative means (which aren't described) in Ruins of Undermountain. Nester (sp?) is one of them that comes to mind, although is probably not the perfect example. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 03:03:46
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Not at home and near my sources, but I suspect that comes from the Hall of the Beast Tamers adventure in Dragon #95/the Old Grey Box or REF3 The Lords of Darkness. I know the latter talks about a lich needing to cast "Nulathoe's Ninemen" on his/her phylactery periodically, so I suspect it's the former.
-- George Krashos
Ah, so perhaps a specialized or unique lich.
EDIT: Indeed, there it was - Ref5, Lords of Darkness. Most liches cast Nulathoe's Ninemen regularly on their phylactery to maintain their existence (once every 777 days, or they and their phylactery crumble to dust on the 778th). Others consume larvae instead of casting Nulathoe's Ninemen.
Good memory - and so it was in lore, interesting. This also allows an "out" for good liches to not need larvae/souls.
Makes one wonder if liches have an instinctive awareness of the 777 day time-clock. "Uh oh, approaching day #772 this year, better prep it again." Also, if memory serves, Nulathoe's Ninemen is unique to the Realms - do all liches in Greyhawk or other settings just know about larvae consumption? Or perhaps Nulathoe traveled the planes as many mages do, spreading some of his spells to other worlds?
|
| George Krashos |
Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 02:59:28
Not at home and near my sources, but I suspect that comes from the Hall of the Beast Tamers adventure in Dragon #95/the Old Grey Box or REF3 The Lords of Darkness. I know the latter talks about a lich needing to cast "Nulathoe's Ninemen" on his/her phylactery periodically, so I suspect it's the former.
-- George Krashos |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 31 Aug 2015 : 02:06:58
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
To each their own, but as for the argument concerning vampirism vs. lichdom I'll say this: Perhaps the reason for lichdom (and consuming souls rather than blood) could be that consuming the soul maintains the lich's strength for far longer than blood does for the vampire. This would allow the lich to continue its studies without the burden of having to feast on blood on a nightly (or near nightly) basis.
Just a thought.
Earlier you had mentioned seeing that liches fed on larvae (and I'm assuming you meant soul larvae) and I was going to ask you if you remembered the source? I've been delving around and haven't seen it yet (though I have seen some interesting other stuff, like the very early Dragon magazine article on how to build a lich).
Although I dislike the idea, it's mainly because it changes my long-standing perception of how liches operate, their motivations, and their needs. That said, I do agree that blood is certainly less "packed" with energy than a soul would be. And there are creatures that do use souls for nourishment - but I tend to see them as much more active, more of a direct threat than a lich.
|
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 30 Aug 2015 : 21:10:27
To each their own, but as for the argument concerning vampirism vs. lichdom I'll say this: Perhaps the reason for lichdom (and consuming souls rather than blood) could be that consuming the soul maintains the lich's strength for far longer than blood does for the vampire. This would allow the lich to continue its studies without the burden of having to feast on blood on a nightly (or near nightly) basis.
Just a thought. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 30 Aug 2015 : 20:01:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm going to echo that I don't like liches needing to feed, because -- as pointed out earlier -- it invalidates prior lore about liches and leaves one wondering why that option instead of another, like vampirism.
Someone else pointed out that liches have been known to do trade for souls... Well, just because they acquire them, it doesn't mean they're eating them. They could be using them for research, for fueling other magical effects, or just getting them as a means of having something to trade to those who do deal with souls as currency.
Exactly. For liches who seek more knowledge by traversing the planes, souls have already been established as currency in the lower planes. They might trade some of their spells or items for a few souls, which then they can use to barter with high level demons or devils.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Aug 2015 : 19:48:22
I'm going to echo that I don't like liches needing to feed, because -- as pointed out earlier -- it invalidates prior lore about liches and leaves one wondering why that option instead of another, like vampirism.
Someone else pointed out that liches have been known to do trade for souls... Well, just because they acquire them, it doesn't mean they're eating them. They could be using them for research, for fueling other magical effects, or just getting them as a means of having something to trade to those who do deal with souls as currency. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 30 Aug 2015 : 19:35:33
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
First off, I already demonstrated how the 'quality' of a soul can affect the 'nutritional value' () it provides. In my example, a level 25 character would provide a lich with enough energy to sustain itself for a little over 52 years.
Given that the new rules don't seem to specify a mathematical formula for sustenance, 52 years makes as much sense as 50 or 75 or 200.
quote:
Second, I already explained that if they are changing 'demilich' because the name is misleading, then they need to change the meaning of 'archlich' as well. The archlich should NOT be 'a good lich', it should be a superior lich.
Previous lore doesn't suggest any general sense of superiority for an archlich, just that they're different in terms of alignment.
This would be like saying, "since they broke one thing that didn't need fixing" that they should also break all the related concepts that went with the original.
quote:
I really do LOVE the idea of liches 'feeding' on life energy
Personally, I really don't like the idea. Classically, and in previous lore (and has been stated by another poster), a lich's goal is to retreat from mortal affairs and the needs of the flesh. Demiliches trapped and destroyed souls out of malice, for daring to invade their retreat. Liches really just wanted to study and gain more power and knowledge. It really set them apart from other undead, whether it was for duty (archliches) or personal gain (regular liches).
Fortunately, this is a game where we get to ignore rules we dislike, rather than being required to embrace formulaic requirements.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 30 Aug 2015 : 16:23:50
First off, I already demonstrated how the 'quality' of a soul can affect the 'nutritional value' () it provides. In my example, a level 25 character would provide a lich with enough energy to sustain itself for a little over 52 years.
Second, I already explained that if they are changing 'demilich' because the name is misleading, then they need to change the meaning of 'archlich' as well. The archlich should NOT be 'a good lich', it should be a superior lich.
There should be some sort of 'good' lich. HOWEVER, 'good' is VERY relative. A Baelnorn created back in the day of the Crown wars could be murdering every human it comes across... because they are just 'filthy, thieving animals'. Thus, you can have a lich that is 'tainted' with positive (Divine) energy to sustain itself, and that type of lich would NOT need to "eat souls". This category would replace the old 'Greater Mummy' (Ancient Dead), because they would normally be created by priesthoods. That does not make them universally 'good', because I I just stated, that 'goodness' would be relative to the culture and religion that created it. That means an Urlich (going with the term I coined earlier) who is created by halflings probably bakes pies all day and just ignores whats going on, whilst an Urlich created by Drow priestesses probably tears everyone it meets apart... including the people who created it. Its all 'good', depending upon the culture. The only problem with this is that it makes sense RW, but in the D&D 'alignment system', not so much. Thus a Urlich should be neutral, with individuals having 'tendencies' that lean it one way or another. They are not so much 'immoral' as they are 'amoral'.
I really do LOVE the idea of liches 'feeding' on life energy - it makes sense on so many levels, and if we apply some of the things I've said here, we still get a vast panorama of arch-types and unique individuals, that would cover all the bases, both old-school and new. It just gives them more depth. Some liches (like the Suel lich that Tan Chin seems to be) have always done something along these lines, and as others have stated regarding both OD&D and 1e, this is NOTHING NEW. They are just high-lightening some things we have forgotten about liches over the years. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 30 Aug 2015 : 08:18:23
Which is why, perhaps, liches (as stated back in 1e) fed on larvae. They didn't have to engage to local populace in order feed...and thus remained secret for centuries. I would also assume that they really don't need all that many larvae to feed upon to maintain their state of undeath (though there should be minimal requirements before insanity and/or decay into demi-lichdom sets in). Perhaps MTs formula of '1 level=2 months' is a bit high. What if were '1 level=1 year' instead?
And, of course, not all liches choose not to engage. Tam is a clear example of this. He would need souls...and in the trilogy centering on his taking over Thay he appeared to consume several people (though that may have just been for his ritual).
And whose to say that every lich arrives at their undead state the same way? Go back to 1e and you will see there was a Lichdom spell (9th level) at one time. There was also the creation of a potion that was a save (and become a lich once actual death occurred) or die on the spot (and fail to become a lich). There have also (apparently) been instances where individuals became liches through sheer force of will (though I really don't like that notion AT ALL).
MTs thoughts are a group of 'YMMV' examples. Take what you like, discard the rest. As for me...I like having multiple avenues for these things. |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 30 Aug 2015 : 03:00:30
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrinishad
The need to feed on souls gives Liches a reason to be engaged in the game-world, just like Vampires
Which is not seen as a good thing by everybody. Not having a need to be engaged was one of the trademarks of liches. It enabled them to study quietly for decades and centuries until they came upon a reason to be enganged.
You don't get this "ancient lich coming out of nowhere" with liches that are well known in their regions for periodically feeding on souls.
It also made it easier to treat with a lich. You could do a lich a favor and then leave him be in the knowledge he would just quietly study for another century. Walking away from a lich know is letting a souleater continuing to pray on the innocent. |
| Venomus |
Posted - 30 Aug 2015 : 02:21:11
quote:
The need to feed on souls gives Liches a reason to be engaged in the game-world, just like Vampires.
Well wasn't that the purpose in becoming a lich to be "immortal" without a need for sustenance from outher sources? Eternity for gaining knowledge but at a price of being a skeleton (without some valuable ekhm, fleshy bits).
If liches now need to feed souls then what is the point in becoming one? Every necromancer should instead invest in vampiredom. If you have to feed like mortals why not have all your body intact(with reproductive organs!) and look young. Souls, blood what's the difference,eh? Even better, you can drink without killing people (eating souls is...kinda terminal for health).
It's kinda sad becouse i always loved the idea of liches (in D&D and Warhammer especially) and seeing that a powerhouse like Larloch that just wants to be left alone must actively collect souls is...kinda lame. It just does't feel right for the mythology...
|
|
|
