I was wondering, could a lich be good? What about a sorcerer who decided to become a lich because he thought the world wouldn't be safe without him? I'm just wondering if this is possible. Please leave ideas below!
Generally liches are evil. Even if they were not originally, the dark magic that severs their soul and turns them into a lich will remove their empathy and twist their point of view. Moreover, it is an affront to every non-evil God and nature.
And good and evil being rather subjective, "evil" is basically anything that is harmful to the world or opposes the natural order or greater good. Avoiding death in such an extreme way is entirely selfish, the ritual requires soul sacrifices, and obviously is unnatural.
There are less abhorrent ways to protect the world forever. A god can grant immortality/longevity to a person if they feel it is necessary. The clone spell, wish, etc.
FoxfireInferno is right. Anything that can be imagined can happen in D&D. If the DM decides that there are good liches in the campaign world, then there are.
Mechanically there's no reason to believe that a Lich can't be good.
Thematically, however.... I'd have a harder time justifying a good Lich, due to the very nature of the necromantic magic that provides the immortality. The enchantment is literally fueled by the sacrifice of other living souls, extending the remaining life of the Lich by the natural lifespan the creature sacrificed could have lived. People who consider themselves "good" would have to come to grips with that and resolve their own internal struggle over it.
Not to say it can't happen. There may be a society built around preserving a powerful individual, where members of the society willingly sacrifice themselves to sustain their ruler and protector. Or perhaps it's that society's equivalent to the death penalty for truly severe crimes. But whatever the reason is, it has to make sense.
And the DM could very well come up with a different way that the lich became a lich. There are no limitations to D&D beyond those of the people playing the game. Though I would personally limit the number of "good" liches just to keep the lore of the lich intact. But again, that is a self imposed limit, not one set in stone by the game itself.
Well, in my system, the "Shadow Monarch" is the closest thing to a "good lich." One of the Jedi from the clone wars series said it best. " Force abilities are not inherently evil, its all in the application and drive behind its use."
" The Shadow Monarch is the ultimate expression of a "One Man Army" even in a team Setting his minions would act as meat shields for the allies while going on the Offensive, maybe in future version I will develop tactics and formations for the minions so the minions and party won't easily be decimated by random monsters or even the character's current enemies."
Personally, I never understood why death, or personifications of death are considered evil. As death is simply the absence of life.
As I understand it, in the case of the lich, the rituals and procedures one must undertake for the transformation are so unspeakably cruel and depraved, which is what causes the alignment shift. Nothing says the actions of the lich afterwards can't change it back, of course.
I think they would view it as a necessary sacrifice to protect and guard the safety of the world because the alternative is them not being around to help anyone. This is just the ramblings of a dumb d&d player who hasn't even been at this for a year so take my stuff with a MOUNTIAN of salt. Thanks for the support.
I don't think a lich necessarily has to have bad intentions, but something that they have to be (and I mean HAVE to be, in order to even become a lich) is monomaniacally focused. Anyone so determined to "protect" a world that they're sure can't be safe without their continued existence is going to have a pretty narrow definition of "good."
Back in 2nd edition there was a neutral good lich, I believe a female one but cannot remember which module. I believe she was a balenorn or something like that.
There was a good lich in 4th edition called a Baelnorn Lich which are Eladrin who usually chose to become one to protect ancestral vault and tombs. (Pg. 162, 165 in Open Grave: secrets of the undead). They're interesting ones because they can theoretically not have a phylactery. I would think that the elven ancestors in Eberron part of the Aerenal elves could also be considered a type of lich - though they use positive energy instead of negative sorts to become undead beings that last forever and prefer to call themselves the Undying, if I recall correctly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was wondering, could a lich be good? What about a sorcerer who decided to become a lich because he thought the world wouldn't be safe without him? I'm just wondering if this is possible. Please leave ideas below!
If the GM says so, then it can be.
I feel like I've seen this thread before.
Generally liches are evil. Even if they were not originally, the dark magic that severs their soul and turns them into a lich will remove their empathy and twist their point of view. Moreover, it is an affront to every non-evil God and nature.
And good and evil being rather subjective, "evil" is basically anything that is harmful to the world or opposes the natural order or greater good. Avoiding death in such an extreme way is entirely selfish, the ritual requires soul sacrifices, and obviously is unnatural.
There are less abhorrent ways to protect the world forever. A god can grant immortality/longevity to a person if they feel it is necessary. The clone spell, wish, etc.
FoxfireInferno is right. Anything that can be imagined can happen in D&D. If the DM decides that there are good liches in the campaign world, then there are.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I agree. A lich doesn't have to be evil. (although most of them are).
Also, I believe that there is a good (or at least neutral) lich in the Prince of the Apocalypse adventure.
...of course, my DM may have just put a lich in the adventure for kicks and giggles.
Personally, I never understood why death, or personifications of death are considered evil. As death is simply the absence of life.
Mechanically there's no reason to believe that a Lich can't be good.
Thematically, however.... I'd have a harder time justifying a good Lich, due to the very nature of the necromantic magic that provides the immortality. The enchantment is literally fueled by the sacrifice of other living souls, extending the remaining life of the Lich by the natural lifespan the creature sacrificed could have lived. People who consider themselves "good" would have to come to grips with that and resolve their own internal struggle over it.
Not to say it can't happen. There may be a society built around preserving a powerful individual, where members of the society willingly sacrifice themselves to sustain their ruler and protector. Or perhaps it's that society's equivalent to the death penalty for truly severe crimes. But whatever the reason is, it has to make sense.
And the DM could very well come up with a different way that the lich became a lich. There are no limitations to D&D beyond those of the people playing the game. Though I would personally limit the number of "good" liches just to keep the lore of the lich intact. But again, that is a self imposed limit, not one set in stone by the game itself.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah, I was only going for 1. Thanks for the responses!
Well, in my system, the "Shadow Monarch" is the closest thing to a "good lich." One of the Jedi from the clone wars series said it best. " Force abilities are not inherently evil, its all in the application and drive behind its use."
As I understand it, in the case of the lich, the rituals and procedures one must undertake for the transformation are so unspeakably cruel and depraved, which is what causes the alignment shift. Nothing says the actions of the lich afterwards can't change it back, of course.
I think they would view it as a necessary sacrifice to protect and guard the safety of the world because the alternative is them not being around to help anyone. This is just the ramblings of a dumb d&d player who hasn't even been at this for a year so take my stuff with a MOUNTIAN of salt. Thanks for the support.
I don't think a lich necessarily has to have bad intentions, but something that they have to be (and I mean HAVE to be, in order to even become a lich) is monomaniacally focused. Anyone so determined to "protect" a world that they're sure can't be safe without their continued existence is going to have a pretty narrow definition of "good."
This is true.
Back in 2nd edition there was a neutral good lich, I believe a female one but cannot remember which module. I believe she was a balenorn or something like that.
EDIT LInk below to information.
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Archlich
Turning a lich good is something that is definitely within the power of a wish.
Why this would happen is very mysterious and something that would likely make an interesting backdrop for an adventure or a campaign.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There was a good lich in 4th edition called a Baelnorn Lich which are Eladrin who usually chose to become one to protect ancestral vault and tombs. (Pg. 162, 165 in Open Grave: secrets of the undead). They're interesting ones because they can theoretically not have a phylactery. I would think that the elven ancestors in Eberron part of the Aerenal elves could also be considered a type of lich - though they use positive energy instead of negative sorts to become undead beings that last forever and prefer to call themselves the Undying, if I recall correctly.