| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
 Posted - 16 May 2012 : 16:11:58
|
I recently re-read Richard Lee Byers undead trilogy and i was moved by Bareris' dedication to find a way to redeem his vampire lover Tammith and this has made me wonder whether this is possible.
Remembering that bit from the chaos curse where Cadderly destroys the vampire Histra he notices that she repents at her moment of death and is believes that she is forgiven and embraced by the goddess Sune.
As a non-Realms example in the recent film Dark Shadows Barnabas Collins desires that the witch Angelique Bouchard grant him his humanity back.
Obviously the more vile and corrupt undead like dream vestiges and zombies cannot be saved but is redemption possible for the more intelligent forms of undead like vampires and liches? And if they cannot be saved in mortal coil then can they be rescued on a spiritual level? If so then what measures could be taken to that effect?
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 16:28:43
|
From a Game Mechanics standpoint, it really depends on the players of the game.
If a Vampire is destroyed, can it be Raised/Reincarnated/Rez'd?
There is a particular spell called Unlife to Life or some such...I can't recall right now what its name is; but it can bring an Undead back to its mortal life I think.
Personally, I like the idea of Redemption...especially for those that never wanted to be Undead to begin with. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
 |
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 17:06:39
|
Yes. Mirror was a paladin of an unknown god before he became an undead. But, in a way, he was redeemed. He was able to wield piercing light (as a boon from his god) even though it was anathema to his present nature. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 17:15:31
|
Van Richten's Guide to the Vampire discusses this issue as well; he is torn between attempting to redeem these afflicted souls or utterly destroying them before their undead condition can spread. Van Richten's perspective is somewhat speculative and much complicated by the limited availability of spellcasting priests or non-cursed raise dead spells in Ravenloft. No actual rules are written in his Guide, no crunch, just fluff ... leaving it up to individual DMs and authors to interpret and decide as needed. To my knowledge, the possibility of reclaiming vampires was briefly considered in a few Ravenloft novels yet never actually attempted, at least not with any conclusive results.
It's basically just automatically assumed that once you've gone vamp, like it or not, there's just no coming back.
From a pure game mechanics standpoint, in addition to resurrection or a reversed unlife spell, a wish spell should be able to restore life to the undead - especially if the undead character is willing to reclaim his life and reject an undeath he probably never wanted anyhow. I suppose creatures like liches might be beyond this sort of redemption, or at the very least they'd be "hardened" against this potential form of magical attack. I suppose vampires and ghosts might be unredeemable after a certain point, after too many centuries of predation has eroded their essential humanity to the point where their souls are closer to monster than human, closer to death than to life. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 17:24:27
|
I suppose it also depends on the type of undead. If you're among the multiple-souls entity called dream vestige, I think reviving you to your former, 'healthy' form would be quite difficult, if not impossible. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36858 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 18:14:57
|
Yes.
Elves of Evermeet (pages 69-70) has a couple of 9th-level High Magic spells that are relevant...
One is Gift of Life, which returns undead creatures to life. Another is Soul Freedom, which changes the alignment of a critter to Good. Of course, the second spell might not be necessary, because the description of Gift of Life says that "This spell does not necessarily change the alignment of a creature who was originally evil, but the elves recount legends of wicked liches or vampires who were restored through this spell, repented their old lives, and changed alignment, dedicating themselves to the defense of elves." |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 18:33:39
|
Forcing one to be good for the greater good is...good.
It could have been worse, though. Many think it right to kill a few to save the many...for the sake of the greater good.
In the context of forcibly transforming an undead to living, and his alignment, from evil to good, even if the spell will (say, for example) plunge the subject in unimaginable torture for a long period of time, if it's guaranteed to do its purpose (and if it's for the greater good), then one would deem it...right. |
Every beginning has an end. |
Edited by - Dennis on 16 May 2012 19:36:21 |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 20:00:16
|
As a person that doesn't hold that intrinsic "Good" and "Evil" forces exist, I don't think it is evil to make someone become good aligned.
Alignment to me is more a matter of picking teams than picking forces.
A society that views slavery as "Good" to protect a certain people may genuinely feel they are the "Good Guys" trying to protect the "less enlightened" from the Freedom and chaos offered by rebels infiltrating from another society.
In fact, a "Good Guy" might be a Paladin trying to enforce the Law against a band of bandits (of Chaotic Good alignment) who think it is perfectly fine to steal the King's Treasure chest and give it back to the poor.
Too much grey area for me in alignments sometimes... |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36858 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 20:03:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Soul freedom. You have no choice, you may attempt to resist - but if you fail you become Good-aligned, no exceptions.
I'll note that there are multiple save attempts, over a 10 year span. So it's not a one-shot insta-good switch.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The philosophical debate might be beyond the scope of this scroll ... but if a non-Good creature truly desired to become Good then it would find a path towards Goodness without need for a spell such as this. I would actually argue that casting this spell is an intrinsically non-Good (ie: Evil) action, even the spell's name is a euphemism, soul tyranny would be more fitting.
I'm really hoping we don't wind up debating this one... That could get ugly. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 20:15:45
|
| -Heh, one reason why I've backed off from the kind of objectivist viewpoints on good, evil, law, chaos and everything in-between in D&D. While certain monsters or whatever else could be these concepts incarnate, actions have way too many variables to ever objectively be considered good, evil, lawful, chaotic, and so on. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 22:36:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Soul freedom. You have no choice, you may attempt to resist - but if you fail you become Good-aligned, no exceptions.
The philosophical debate might be beyond the scope of this scroll ... but if a non-Good creature truly desired to become Good then it would find a path towards Goodness without need for a spell such as this. I would actually argue that casting this spell is an intrinsically non-Good (ie: Evil) action, even the spell's name is a euphemism, soul tyranny would be more fitting.
*cue daffy duck laughter*
Ammo.
argumentative ammo.
Oh bless you.
But, just to play devil’s advocate, what if the spell is meant to destroy a tyranny already put into place. Take a vampire, or one of the spider people, for instance; you have consumed life for so long. Drinking on the vary essence of someone’s life force. It could be intoxicating, a drug that slowly batters away at one’s will until the sure desire to fight it is gone. Would not this spell give one a clean slate from which to then make those decisions from.
The existence of this spell opens a whole list of questions regarding the ugly… I mean the monstrous races that are all evil.
|
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 22:53:36
|
If a lich is forced to transform into a living person, will he still be able turn back into a lich? Or will the spell that revived him prevent him from doing it? Lingering side effects? |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4692 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 22:53:44
|
In the realm of magic all things are possible. Wish, Miracle or divine intervention stand a good chance of working as have a few of the other spells listed.
I also see potential of problems of a character being restored as normal. Depending on rules followed, a human a vampire for 400 years could be ruled dead of old age on being saved. Oh there are other less extreme options of having a character become normal at the same age as when transformed. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36858 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 23:00:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
If a lich is forced to transform into a living person, will he still be able turn back into a lich? Or will the spell that revived him prevent him from doing it? Lingering side effects?
Nothing in the description of Gift of Life says it rules out a later return to undeath. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 06:20:27
|
| Sorry, my last post was an inadvertant but excellently successful troll. Not my intent to start another alignment argument in a scroll about life and undeath. Post deleted and I shall speak no more of it here. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 06:32:36
|
And if the lich-turned-alive still has a phylactory, perhaps upon dying again he returns to undeath?
I was going to cite examples of living beings with phylactories... but then I realized, Voldermort is really a lich under D&D rules. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 06:38:48
|
Other scrolls have already observed many parallels between Voldermort's horcrux and a D&D lich's phylactery.
As I stated above, though, I think it likely a lich would not allow itself nor its immortality to be destroyed, unmade, controlled, or neutralized by the "simple" casting of some 9th level spells.
Note that there are items like amulets of life protection which can hold and protect the wearer's soul in a fashion similar to a lich's phylactery ... so long as the amulet remains intact, the ex-wearer can be restored from any kind of death or disintegration or whatnot. Of course the caveat is that the wearer's soul is anchored to the amulet instead of (presumably) waiting on the Fugue or travelling to some other eternal extraplanar afterlife ... and control or destruction of the amulet would likewise affect the contained soul. Not dissimilar to the demon amulets in AD&D (1E) rules. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 17 May 2012 06:47:11 |
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 07:49:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yes.
Elves of Evermeet (pages 69-70) has a couple of 9th-level High Magic spells that are relevant...
One is Gift of Life, which returns undead creatures to life. Another is Soul Freedom, which changes the alignment of a critter to Good. Of course, the second spell might not be necessary, because the description of Gift of Life says that "This spell does not necessarily change the alignment of a creature who was originally evil, but the elves recount legends of wicked liches or vampires who were restored through this spell, repented their old lives, and changed alignment, dedicating themselves to the defense of elves."
This sounds interesting but i suppose most elven high mages would be unlikely to use their measurable powers to aid unholy creatures unless they were elves of great power when they were alive. |
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 09:55:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Yes. Mirror was a paladin of an unknown god before he became an undead. But, in a way, he was redeemed. He was able to wield piercing light (as a boon from his god) even though it was anathema to his present nature.
Mirror is a pretty good example of an undead that doesn't fit our preconceived stereotype of evil. He is a ghost able to wield the holy powers of his unknown god and thus is a potent exception to the general rule.I'm convinced that he was reunited with his god upon his final death. |
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 10:00:22
|
| About the suggestion that undead would be forced to be good remember that many people of a good alignment are forced to be evil when they are afflicted with the curse of undeath. Tammith and Histra are good examples of this. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36858 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 11:09:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And if the lich-turned-alive still has a phylactory, perhaps upon dying again he returns to undeath?
I was going to cite examples of living beings with phylactories... but then I realized, Voldermort is really a lich under D&D rules.
I would say that returning a lich to life would destroy the phylactery. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36858 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 11:13:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yes.
Elves of Evermeet (pages 69-70) has a couple of 9th-level High Magic spells that are relevant...
One is Gift of Life, which returns undead creatures to life. Another is Soul Freedom, which changes the alignment of a critter to Good. Of course, the second spell might not be necessary, because the description of Gift of Life says that "This spell does not necessarily change the alignment of a creature who was originally evil, but the elves recount legends of wicked liches or vampires who were restored through this spell, repented their old lives, and changed alignment, dedicating themselves to the defense of elves."
This sounds interesting but i suppose most elven high mages would be unlikely to use their measurable powers to aid unholy creatures unless they were elves of great power when they were alive.
That's one possibility... Any friend of the elves that has fallen to undeath might be a candidate for this spell. I can see it being used on elven foes, too -- a living human spellslinger, for example, is easier to take down than a lich. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 11:49:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And if the lich-turned-alive still has a phylactory, perhaps upon dying again he returns to undeath?
I was going to cite examples of living beings with phylactories... but then I realized, Voldermort is really a lich under D&D rules.
I would say that returning a lich to life would destroy the phylactery.
That make sense because the phylactery is the secure vault of a soul.So if you were brought back to life then the soul would be within you again,yes?This means that the phylactery is destroyed because the soul bursts out to rejoin the body and if a return to undeath is desired then the whole ritual(or whatever)must be cast again. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 17:45:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I would say that returning a lich to life would destroy the phylactery.
-Hmm...Well, would you agree the main point of a phylactery is that the magic of it basically alters the direction a soul takes upon death? Instead of going to the afterlife, it directs the soul into it (and then the soul inhabits a new body when it can). Much like living in an undead body, if a Lich's essence somehow inhabited a living body and became alive again, the magic of the phylactery would still be in effect. When the "living Lich" died, it's essence would then be guided into the phylactery, instead of into the afterlife. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 00:29:55
|
In road of the Patriarch, the Dragon sisters make it sound as though one can have a phylactery while still living. It would make sense that one would build the thing before dieing, but based on their conversation, which I shall admit, doesn’t necessary follow mechanics exactly, that one can build one at any time, then choose to activate it at any time.
Based on this, and other comments made both here and elsewhere, the following conclusion seems to form: given that phylactery, differ depending upon the process and time/ energy put into them, the response that such an item would have to a undeath to life spell would have would depend on the character of the item in question. More complex, pain staking ones would probably remain, where ones that were quickly crafted, or where less time and energy was placed into their creation would not. I also think that whether the person is willing or not at the point of their conversion should have some impact.
Of course, I’m against the whole, forcing an individual to alignment without actions supporting it. Forced undeath shouldn’t have the same impact as desired undeath. Of course, it makes it easier in a lot of ways, if things are all stereotyped in that manner.
|
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36858 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 04:41:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I would say that returning a lich to life would destroy the phylactery.
-Hmm...Well, would you agree the main point of a phylactery is that the magic of it basically alters the direction a soul takes upon death? Instead of going to the afterlife, it directs the soul into it (and then the soul inhabits a new body when it can). Much like living in an undead body, if a Lich's essence somehow inhabited a living body and became alive again, the magic of the phylactery would still be in effect. When the "living Lich" died, it's essence would then be guided into the phylactery, instead of into the afterlife.
My thinking is that bonding with the phylactery is part of the entire process of becoming a lich. Once you are no longer a lich, that bond is broken. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 07:23:01
|
And to the giant space hamster, I respond with this, why should returning the person to being alive brake the connection between their soul/ spirit/ psychy from the object in question. There is nothing within the character of an item that’s purpose is the transferring of that (e.g. soul/spirit/ psychy), and the nature of living. Yes, Litches are by their nature undead, although what that exactly indicates is a matter for debate in of itself, the process of creating the phylactery doesn’t immediately cause the transformation into a litch, either through the character of the term (i.e. phylactery,), the mechanics as they have been stated (e.g. the SRD, and online sources). There fore it is possible, in keeping with these sources previously stated, and with Road of the patriarch, that one could have created a phylactery, and left it sitting somewhere for years without the full transformation to litchdom. Now holding this, let us take into consideration the fact, but hardly the only one, that a phylactery allows for the transfer of the soul/spirit/psyche of the being from a host, in one place, and enables it to be transferred unerringly to the object in question. The binding of this essential element of being to an object is so powerful, that not only does it hold the soul/spirit for an indefenit period of time, but ensures that it will function as such no matter where the host was at the time of the destruction of the hosts body. Given all this therefore, the most logical conclusion would be that simply returning the being to life would not be sufficient to break the curse of litchdom once inacted. Once alive however, one could destroy the phylactery without negative consequences.
(note: I understand that fantasy doesn’t follow logical systems much of the time, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be occasionally imposed.
Second, I am not doing this to be argumentative with Wooly Rupert, but have engaged in the exercise simply to show the character of why I don’t see the matter is clear cut as he does. Of course, how he decides to treat the matter in his own game is his on prerogative and I shall not argue if he remains to that decision. I have a tendency to attempt to explain my fantasy with the same viggir in which I desire to understand the world in which I live, sometimes with consequences unintended. I hope that the argument presented will at the very least will spark some thoughts on the nature of what is being discussed, thank you, that is all).
|
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36858 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 10:45:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
And to the giant space hamster, I respond with this, why should returning the person to being alive brake the connection between their soul/ spirit/ psychy from the object in question. There is nothing within the character of an item that’s purpose is the transferring of that (e.g. soul/spirit/ psychy), and the nature of living. Yes, Litches are by their nature undead, although what that exactly indicates is a matter for debate in of itself, the process of creating the phylactery doesn’t immediately cause the transformation into a litch, either through the character of the term (i.e. phylactery,), the mechanics as they have been stated (e.g. the SRD, and online sources). There fore it is possible, in keeping with these sources previously stated, and with Road of the patriarch, that one could have created a phylactery, and left it sitting somewhere for years without the full transformation to litchdom. Now holding this, let us take into consideration the fact, but hardly the only one, that a phylactery allows for the transfer of the soul/spirit/psyche of the being from a host, in one place, and enables it to be transferred unerringly to the object in question. The binding of this essential element of being to an object is so powerful, that not only does it hold the soul/spirit for an indefenit period of time, but ensures that it will function as such no matter where the host was at the time of the destruction of the hosts body. Given all this therefore, the most logical conclusion would be that simply returning the being to life would not be sufficient to break the curse of litchdom once inacted. Once alive however, one could destroy the phylactery without negative consequences.
(note: I understand that fantasy doesn’t follow logical systems much of the time, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be occasionally imposed.
Second, I am not doing this to be argumentative with Wooly Rupert, but have engaged in the exercise simply to show the character of why I don’t see the matter is clear cut as he does. Of course, how he decides to treat the matter in his own game is his on prerogative and I shall not argue if he remains to that decision. I have a tendency to attempt to explain my fantasy with the same viggir in which I desire to understand the world in which I live, sometimes with consequences unintended. I hope that the argument presented will at the very least will spark some thoughts on the nature of what is being discussed, thank you, that is all).
My thinking is that part of being a lich is being bound to a phylactery, therefore there is no bond if you are not a lich.
The phylactery exists to anchor the soul. If a person is alive, their own body is the anchor. I say that the soul would be re-anchored when the person came back to life, therefore rendering the phylactery useless.
Wouldn't the ability to destroy the phylactery without issue, once returned to life, indicate that the bond was no longer there? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Barastir
Master of Realmslore
Brazil
1600 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 11:26:49
|
Whatever happens, I think it is likely that the former lich will prepare a potion to return to lichdom as soon as possible, if he or she still lives after tha transformation (see the aging theories of Kentinal). After all, a lich usually CHOOSES to be undead. And one thing people are not considering, here, is that final, resting death can be freedom (although killing him or herself can be anathema).  |
"Goodness is not a natural state, but must be
fought for to be attained and maintained.
Lead by example.
Let your deeds speak your intentions.
Goodness radiated from the heart."
The Paladin's Virtues, excerpt from the "Quentin's Monograph"
(by Ed Greenwood) |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 11:59:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
And to the giant space hamster, I respond with this, why should returning the person to being alive brake the connection between their soul/ spirit/ psychy from the object in question. There is nothing within the character of an item that’s purpose is the transferring of that (e.g. soul/spirit/ psychy), and the nature of living. Yes, Litches are by their nature undead, although what that exactly indicates is a matter for debate in of itself, the process of creating the phylactery doesn’t immediately cause the transformation into a litch, either through the character of the term (i.e. phylactery,), the mechanics as they have been stated (e.g. the SRD, and online sources). There fore it is possible, in keeping with these sources previously stated, and with Road of the patriarch, that one could have created a phylactery, and left it sitting somewhere for years without the full transformation to litchdom. Now holding this, let us take into consideration the fact, but hardly the only one, that a phylactery allows for the transfer of the soul/spirit/psyche of the being from a host, in one place, and enables it to be transferred unerringly to the object in question. The binding of this essential element of being to an object is so powerful, that not only does it hold the soul/spirit for an indefenit period of time, but ensures that it will function as such no matter where the host was at the time of the destruction of the hosts body. Given all this therefore, the most logical conclusion would be that simply returning the being to life would not be sufficient to break the curse of litchdom once inacted. Once alive however, one could destroy the phylactery without negative consequences.
(note: I understand that fantasy doesn’t follow logical systems much of the time, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be occasionally imposed.
Second, I am not doing this to be argumentative with Wooly Rupert, but have engaged in the exercise simply to show the character of why I don’t see the matter is clear cut as he does. Of course, how he decides to treat the matter in his own game is his on prerogative and I shall not argue if he remains to that decision. I have a tendency to attempt to explain my fantasy with the same viggir in which I desire to understand the world in which I live, sometimes with consequences unintended. I hope that the argument presented will at the very least will spark some thoughts on the nature of what is being discussed, thank you, that is all).
My thinking is that part of being a lich is being bound to a phylactery, therefore there is no bond if you are not a lich.
The phylactery exists to anchor the soul. If a person is alive, their own body is the anchor. I say that the soul would be re-anchored when the person came back to life, therefore rendering the phylactery useless.
Wouldn't the ability to destroy the phylactery without issue, once returned to life, indicate that the bond was no longer there?
I believe you missed point C. The objection is not whether the soul is present, but the tie there of. The soul is currently present in the body, or else destroying the item would cause death, that conclusion is valadly deduced, but you assume that the presence of life is simply enough to cause the litch not to be a litch, when the vary name phylactery, states otherwise. If another name was used, then this conclusion would have less validity, or none at all, as seen in my previous argument. Yest, it is called a phylactery, and so must be treated as such logically. You may disregard this element and simply say that the construction of a magical item, called a phylactery, independent of the routes of the word, houses the soul/spirit, and in so doing, completes the act, making the litch. it is then the cause of undeath, and so on. Thus, restoring the litch to life would destroy the magical item called a phylactery. Perhaps I am guilty of following a word and giving it more significance than the creators intended, but given the word, this conclusion is perfect rational and all the arguments thus far. All of which has started from an initial primace of an individual becoming a litch against their wishes, possible, and the consequences of a spell that would as the name implyes, simply restore them to life.
All this is mute given your conclusion about phylactery, but at least you see my issue with them and the reason for my argumentation. At least I hope.
|
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36858 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 14:04:19
|
A lich is, in D&D terms, an undead creature who has taken the time to prepare a receptacle for his soul -- this is part of the process of becoming a lich.
But returning a lich to life reverses everything that was done to make the person undead. All the magic that was worked becomes negated. Since living people don't have a need for a phylactery, and since the bond to the phylactery was part of the process of becoming a lich, I maintain that magically restoring life to the lich breaks the bond to the phylactery. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Can the unholy dead be saved?
