What happens if a lich is redeemed?

[Kruploy]

Can they be considered good while remaining a lich?

Or is the act of existing as a perverted mockery of life in and of itself evil?

Thoughts?

[Rhynn]

I guess this is D&D 3.X?

Nothing. / Whatever the DM says.

Blah blah, non-evil liches in Monsters of Faerûn (baelnorn, archlich), Libris Mortis, blah blah.

[roko10]

They die, because Redemption equals Death(actually, Life if a lich is concerned)

[Cikomyr]

They can't be redeemed.

Locking up your soul in a box and throwing it away means you entered a stasis of your personality. There's no more growing wiser, better or more sound. You decided to remain as you are for eternity, because why would you want to be anything else?

Lichdom represent the ultimate rejection of growth, and the most grandiose display of arrogance on the part of spellcasters.

Now, I can see how some lich might have been neutral (rather than evil) straight from the start, but a lich redeeming itself? Nah.

[Rhynn]

Locking up your soul in a box and throwing it away means you entered a stasis of your personality. There's no more growing wiser, better or more sound.

None of this is actually the case for D&D liches.

[Cikomyr]

None of this is actually the case for D&D liches.

The box is the Phylactery. The Lich severs its connection to its own soul in order to gain undeath.

As as for the "stop growing wiser", I actually took a page out of Rich's book.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

While the point was made with Redcloak, it's still as valid. Magical statis of one's life means you never have to actually face up your own mortality. It means you remain the same person you were. You may gain experience and learn from your trials, but it doesn't mean that you will grow as a person.

Redcloak never did. And I don't see how someone who willingly rejects his own mortality could either.

It's obviously open to interpretation, but I still believes it to be applicable, and a great way to implement characterization to what has been essentially been limited to pure crunch rules.

[Kruploy]

The box is the Phylactery. The Lich severs its connection to its own soul in order to gain undeath.

As as for the "stop growing wiser", I actually took a page out of Rich's book.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

While the point was made with Redcloak, it's still as valid. Magical statis of one's life means you never have to actually face up your own mortality. It means you remain the same person you were. You may gain experience and learn from your trials, but it doesn't mean that you will grow as a person.

Redcloak never did. And I don't see how someone who willingly rejects his own mortality could either.

It's obviously open to interpretation, but I still believes it to be applicable, and a great way to implement characterization to what has been essentially been limited to pure crunch rules.

Redcloak did grow though, throughout the order of the stick, first he embraced Xykon's kill minions to advance tactics.

Then he grew out of that to love his people and treasure the lives of the individuals not just that of the people's.

Then he was shown the price of taking stupid risks and decided to be more cautious, etc. He really did change and grow a lot so I don't think this point is valid.

Also, to the people saying liches have to die to be redeemed, are you saying that a lich can't act out of the goodness of their heart?

I don't think that's true. Liches retain their personalities so if there was some good in the lich before lichdom, it only makes sense that there would be some good in the lich as well.

[Cikomyr]

Redcloak did grow though, throughout the order of the stick, first he embraced Xykon's kill minions to advance tactics.

Then he grew out of that to love his people and treasure the lives of the individuals not just that of the people's.

Then he was shown the price of taking stupid risks and decided to be more cautious, etc. He really did change and grow a lot so I don't think this point is valid.

Also, to the people saying liches have to die to be redeemed, are you saying that a lich can't act out of the goodness of their heart?

I don't think that's true. Liches retain their personalities so if there was some good in the lich before lichdom, it only makes sense that there would be some good in the lich as well.

But, in Right-Eye's words:

"He is still the same angry kid who donned the cloak 80 years ago". Just because he has learned, doesn't mean his character has grown. He's still more than willing to sacrifice goblinfolk if it means achieving his goal. He's just less callous about it now.

[Slipperychicken]

Can they be considered good while remaining a lich?

I think it's possible to redeem a lich, but the process to become one is, according to MM1 page 168, unspeakably evil*. Considering the sort of person willing to go through with that, plus the fact that this person has no soul in his/her body and is instead fueled by dark energies of unlife, I imagine redemption would be rather difficult.


*To bring the evil into perspective, I'd probably clarify it by specifying some seriously depraved example acts that might be taken along the road to lichdom. Since "unspeakably evil" is a tough standard, we're probably talking about things like rituals in which the would-be lich high-fives a demon while he flays the skin off of unwilling good-aligned pregnant humanoids and eats it before torturing them to death.

[Brookshw]

I think it's possible to redeem a lich, but the process to become one is, according to MM1 page 168, unspeakably evil*. Considering the sort of person willing to go through with that, plus the fact that this person has no soul in his/her body and is instead fueled by dark energies of unlife, I imagine redemption would be rather difficult..

Technically its their life force, not soul, that's stored away.

Given the various good liches out there I see no reason one couldn't be redeemed though I'd imagine such would be difficult.

As to oots remember that you're talking about a specific character written by someone who disregards the rules and puts the story first.

Not sure why people have said they can't grow

[Slipperychicken]

Not sure why people have said they can't grow

They're withered and skeletal, and "decay and corruption is [a lich's] constant companion". Also, I don't think undead get mental stat boosts from aging.

[Tengu_temp]

Not a setting-specific question, so... Sure. If a lich is redeemed, he can be good while still being a lich. It's an extremely rare occurence, because the process of turning into a lich is almost universally something extremely evil, but nobody is beyond redemption, as long as they truly want to redeem themselves and try hard enough.

[Brookshw]

They're withered and skeletal, and "decay and corruption is [a lich's] constant companion". Also, I don't think undead get mental stat boosts from aging.

Not bad fluff evidence and I think you're right regarding aging though they can still level (plus demi liches)

Falling back to canon, dark sun 2e, lost sea xpansion, there were the three psionic liches, at least one of which iirc did change his opinion and goals over time. Might come down to how one defines growth.

[Anxe]

Like Rhynn said, there are good lichs in the Monsters of Faerun book. That's just a template though.

There are other examples of redeems undead. The only difference for lichs is that they make the conscious choice to commit unspeakable acts to become undead. Is that something that can be redeemed? Depends on your point of view. I'd say yes, it can be redeemed.

[Tengu_temp]

It's also worth considering what exactly it takes to become a lich in the first place. I get the feeling that the "unspeakably evil" acts the DND rulebook mentions are all about doing horrible things to your own soul. And only your own soul.

And if that's the case? Liches have no reason to be evil by default in the first place. Self-mutilation is not evil.

[Cikomyr]

It's also worth considering what exactly it takes to become a lich in the first place. I get the feeling that the "unspeakably evil" acts the DND rulebook mentions are all about doing horrible things to your own soul. And only your own soul.

And if that's the case? Liches have no reason to be evil by default in the first place. Self-mutilation is not evil.

There is a grey spot when it comes to mutilating your own soul, methink. Which is why victimless depravity is considered to be evil by some standards.

[Slipperychicken]

It's also worth considering what exactly it takes to become a lich in the first place. I get the feeling that the "unspeakably evil" acts the DND rulebook mentions are all about doing horrible things to your own soul. And only your own soul.

"Unspeakable evil" is typically the kind of stuff you don't even want to mention in published rulebooks, much less go into detail. Because it's, you know, unspeakable. Even BoVD only mentions the word "genocide" once, as an example of he most severe category of evil acts.

Also, BoVD lists the mere long-term presence of a lich on the same level of severity ("A Lasting Evil") as committing grisly mass-murder, and one level above "abuse, mistreatment, or starvation of captives". By simply existing, a lich is like a walking massacre. I'd think that they'd have to have done something pretty evil to make that happen.

[PersonMan]

This discussion is neither based on the DnD 3.5 rules for a lich (because it's not in that section) nor is it based on the OOTS version of one (because then it'd either be in that section of have a note that it's based on that in the OP), so showing one example from OOTS or rules from DnD 3.5 and saying "this means they can't" doesn't make sense.

Discussing if they can/can't under specific assumptions (i.e. "If we use the OOTS version of a lich, then they can't, because..." instead of "No, because in OOTS ...") makes sense, but blanketing "this is how a lich works" statements don't.

[Cikomyr]

This discussion is neither based on the DnD 3.5 rules for a lich (because it's not in that section) nor is it based on the OOTS version of one (because then it'd either be in that section of have a note that it's based on that in the OP), so showing one example from OOTS or rules from DnD 3.5 and saying "this means they can't" doesn't make sense.

Discussing if they can/can't under specific assumptions (i.e. "If we use the OOTS version of a lich, then they can't, because..." instead of "No, because in OOTS ...") makes sense, but blanketing "this is how a lich works" statements don't.

Except that OotS is actually trying to find characterisation consequences to the rules we see in the books. Treating the rules as more than just mechanical aspects.

[Tengu_temp]

"Unspeakable evil" is typically the kind of stuff you don't even want to mention in published rulebooks, much less go into detail. Because it's, you know, unspeakable. Even BoVD only mentions the word "genocide" once, as an example of he most severe category of evil acts.

Also, BoVD lists the mere long-term presence of a lich on the same level of severity ("A Lasting Evil") as committing grisly mass-murder, and one level above "abuse, mistreatment, or starvation of captives". By simply existing, a lich is like a walking massacre. I'd think that they'd have to have done something pretty evil to make that happen.

You see, I am not sure is this because becoming a lich requires sacrificing innocents, destroying souls, torture, and other horrible things DND writers don't want to mention for some reason, or because they are operating on some weird principles where corrupting your own soul and becoming undead is more evil than murder (or, you know, evil at all).

If it's the former, then fair game. But if it's the latter, then it's dumb and I don't agree. It's my own soul, I'm an adult, I can do whatever I want with it!

...Now I'm imagining a teenage wizard prodigy who became a lich as an act of rebellion against his parents.

[wumpus]

It's also worth considering what exactly it takes to become a lich in the first place. I get the feeling that the "unspeakably evil" acts the DND rulebook mentions are all about doing horrible things to your own soul. And only your own soul.

And if that's the case? Liches have no reason to be evil by default in the first place. Self-mutilation is not evil.

Then [in your campaign] they should have to do something else. I've assumed that they should sacrifice [and destroy the soul of] whoever is closest to them. How this works with PCs is an open question (it very likely will be another PC), but I don't expect evil campaigns to "work" anyway.

A bunch of thoughts about lichdom, each of which is campaign dependant.

A lich might be "redeemed" to the point of having a non-evil alignment, possibly even a good alignment.

A "redeemed lich" might have a non-evil alignment, but if the negative plane is evil aligned (non-official, but I'd like it to be), the lich willl always detect as Evil, probably highly Evil. Sneaky [read old-school] DMs could simply claim that since "detect evil" is such a low level spell, it lacks the subtlety to determine that "tightly connected to the negative plane" might not equal "evil".

Just as Xykon does not fear "the big fire below" a redeemed lich can't expect to "drink fine scotch and light cigars with poorly written legal documents", regardless of being chaotic good or not. Once a lich is destroyed, he/she/it is gone.

Finally, I'd like to insist that the DMG's "unspeakably evil" should be just that. To evil to be printed in a book otherwise friendly to minors, or even to adults prefering to not have thier gaming enjoyment twisted with the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. Liches are just about the most foul things in the D&D multiverse (demons and other lower outsiders might be made out of pure evil, but liches choose to be what they are. See "Good Omens" by Pratchet and Giaman for further explanation) and should be EVIL. If your players have a lich for an enemy, its existance should revolt the players and they should work tirelessly to destory it ("I fight demons because I like to, I fight the undead because I have to", Unknown Paladin). Voldermort's method was a wimpout simply due to the ages of the readers: his method of gaining lichdom (murder) was already establish as a recreation for his followers. Possible methods of gaining lichdom should include sending a pure soul to the lower planes in his place, or simply destroying a soul (preferably close to the lich in question, especially since such close soul is likely to be less than pure to begin with).

[Geostationary]

The essential requirements for lichdom are simply that 1) you be 'dead' for a given value of dead and 2) You stash away your soul in something that isn't your body/its usual hidey-hole. So no, liches are not by necessity evil.

So how do you redeem your lich? They do something that redeems them. As the rest of this thread shows, this is very setting-specific. As for the consequences of their redemption, make it appropriate to their redemptive deeds and their lich-nature. Lichdom is evil in all ways and leaves on in a state of eternal, evil stasis? Probably can't redeem them without killing them. It's just an evil thing, but doesn't convert your essential nature to evil? You redeem yourself the way one normally would for your atrocities. This may lead to much angst and/or confusion down the road, but hey, them's the breaks. It's morally neutral, but your method's weren't? Again, redeem as anyone else who's committed an atrocity would and cease to worry about grand cosmological punishments for transgressing life itself.

Basically whatever's appropriate for the lich and setting is what happens.

[Brookshw]

This discussion is neither based on the DnD 3.5 rules for a lich (because it's not in that section) nor is it based on the OOTS version of one (because then it'd either be in that section of have a note that it's based on that in the OP), so showing one example from OOTS or rules from DnD 3.5 and saying "this means they can't" doesn't make sense.

Discussing if they can/can't under specific assumptions (i.e. "If we use the OOTS version of a lich, then they can't, because..." instead of "No, because in OOTS ...") makes sense, but blanketing "this is how a lich works" statements don't.

Poppycock, we sometimes discuss 3.5 in the roleplay section. Other systems treatments are of course welcome.

As to the self mutalation bit the only thing I can think as a mechanical parallel is willing deformity in BoVD which I believe carries the Evil tag (afb though).

[TriForce]

if i remember correctly, libris mortis talks a bit about intelligent undead (like a lich for example)

the prime reason why creatures like that have such strange mindsets (in addition to being evil) is that their mindset never changed from the time they became undead. the mere fact that decades or longer have passed, and society changed in their values had no effect on them.

judging from this, it would be safe to assume that the mindset of a lich would be unchanging, so it literally would be impossible for them to change their mind. yes they would still be able to gain experience, and adjust their goals or get new ones, but their outlook on (un)life is permanently stuck in whatever state it was when they first turned into undead, ergo, evil.

now in a general roleplaying setting, its a bit harder to say. its usually up to your own preference, but i would still argue that for a lich, a unholy abomination of life, powered by negative energy itself, its near impossible to redeem, as in, nothing short of a greater gods personal intervention should be powerful enough to change a lich's alignment

[Mastikator]

To become a lich is to pass the Moral Event Horizon. A Lich that would regain their conscience (which is impossible outside of a miracle anyway) would immediately commit suicide, since they can't "live" with what they are or have done.
Or in the case that they are too cowardly to commit suicide, they'd just flee and hide indefinitely.

[LibraryOgre]

The essential question seems to be...

What can change the nature of a man?

[JusticeZero]

I don't treat them as redeemable. Two rulings on the subject.

One, undead are all treated as having acquired psychopathy and flat affect. They literally don't get anything out of doing good things. They don't get anything emotionally out of doing bad things, either. As far as they are concerned, nobody else is real. Helping a little old lady off the street is no different than beheading the little old lady. They're both tedious and time-wasting acts that do nothing for them.

Two, using negative energy all the time causes one to ping as evil. Every necromancer around pings as very evil, and everyone who casts a lot of healing spells pings as good, without exception. This is backed by the fact that good clerics channel positive energy and evil clerics channel negative energy - if they were "neutral", this ruling wouldn't apply.

[Brookshw]

The essential question seems to be...

What can change the nature of a man?

Ehhh, maybe (and for lulz, acquiring lycanthropy. what makes a man turn neutral, is it lust for power? Gold? Or did they acquire the were-direboar template)

Actually, yeah, that is sorta the crux of the matter. When is change permitted and why would the opportunity to change ever be denied?

That was a phenominal game, can't wait for the "sequel".

[Agrippa]

You see, I am not sure is this because becoming a lich requires sacrificing innocents, destroying souls, torture, and other horrible things DND writers don't want to mention for some reason, or because they are operating on some weird principles where corrupting your own soul and becoming undead is more evil than murder (or, you know, evil at all).

If it's the former, then fair game. But if it's the latter, then it's dumb and I don't agree. It's my own soul, I'm an adult, I can do whatever I want with it!

...Now I'm imagining a teenage wizard prodigy who became a lich as an act of rebellion against his parents.

I found a list of ingredients that 2nd Ed. AD&D required for the lichdom potion. By "found" I mean I found the post Mnemnosyne listed them in.

[Grinner]

The existential paradox generated from such an impossibility would tear open a rift in the space-time continuum, and reality itself would begin to unravel.

Domestic fury and fierce civil strife would cumber all the parts of Oerth. Blood and destruction would be so in use and dreadful objects so familiar that mothers would but smile when they beheld their infants quarter'd with the hands of war. All pity choked with custom of fell deeds, and Pelor's spirit, ranging for revenge, with Boccob by his side come hot from hell, would in these confines with a monarch's voice cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war. That this foul deed would smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial.