So, I have this idea, and if it's not entirely bat-guano crazy, I think I will spring it on my players some time in the next few sessions.
In the Amber Temple there is a lich named Exethanter who doesn' t remember who he is. Apparently he has no ill will towards Strahd, and presumably he and Strahd have met when Strahd comes to the temple to learn how to become a vampire.
There is also Khazan, one of the wizards who helped build Castle Ravenloft. According to the book Khazan becomes a lich and challenged Strahd, but Strahd instead asked Khazan to become his magical consultant, and Khazan agreed. Khazan goes to the Amber Temple looking for a way to become a demilich, but apparently is destroyed in the process.
It doesn't make sense to me that the model of Castle Ravenloft is in the Amber Temple in a room called "The architect's room". The castle was built before Strahd became a vampire. Why would the castle's architect be living in the Amber Temple (a place of evil knowledge) before Barovia becomes "evil"? If this architect went to live there with the model after Strahd became evil, why? What happened to this architect?
So, my original plan was that Khazan wasn't destroyed when he went to the Amber Temple to become a demilich. Khazan is the lich, he decided to take the name Exethanter. Since Khazan worked on Castle Ravenloft it would make sense for him to be the architect and have taken the model of the castle with him.
But then I had an idea that the PCs, while searching the temple, would find copies of themselves entombed in some of the amber sarcophagi, suggesting that they had been there before and that being brought to Barovia was fated to happen again and again.
Then I thought... what if the lich isn't the former Khazan, what if it's Strahd!!! (dun, dun, dunnnnn).
Bear with me:
Strahd build the castle with the help of the architect Khazan.
Khazan challenges Strahd for power, and Strahd asks him to be a magical advisor. He accepts.
Khazan goes to the amber temple and successfully becomes a lich, and renames himself Exethanter.
Strahd goes to the temple and with Exethanter's (Khazan's) help becomes a vampire.
After centuries of undeath Straghd's magical research leads him to believe he can never leave Barovia, but he can pull more land into it from elsewhere, increasing his domain (ie. like the old Ravenloft boxed set full of other places).
Strahd believes that if he becomes a lich as well as a vampire he will be super-powerful. To become a Lichpire (Vamlich?) he figures he needs Exethanter's phylactery and to destroy Exethanter and steal his "lichdomness".
Strahd succeeds. He steals the phylactery, kills Exethanter, and performs the ritual to increase his power, but it doesn't go exactly as planned. Strahd becomes Exethanter and loses his memory.
Nature (and the Dark Powers) abhor a vacuum. A new "Strahd" manifests and Barovia "resets" except for the Amber temple.
New adventures get sucked in and meet Strahd. Strahd toys with them and watches to see if there is one or more among them he can corrupt. Strahd has a plan to increase the boundaries of his domain by becoming a Vamplich (Lichpire?) and convinces the PCs that if they can steal the phylactery of the lich in the Amber Temple (Strahd doesn't know that the lich is him!) he can use it in a ritual to cleanse himself of the vampire in him, becoming good again, and freeing all of Barovia. If the PCs don't buy this, he'll just either threaten them, or bribe them with escape from Barovia.
The PCs go to the Amber Temple where they meet Exethanter the lich. If they never help him regain his memory, he helps them (but won't show them where his phylactery is) around the temple. If they steal his phylactery and give it to "new Strahd" it is used in the same ritual as before, and "new Strahd" becomes Exethanter, and everything resets again. Wash-rinse-repeat.
If the PCs successfully help "Exethanter" regain his memories, he remembers that he was Strahd, and claims to be the real Strahd (regardless of how many times the loop has happened). He demands the PCs help him kill the "imposter" Strahd.
If the PCs kill the imposter Strahd, but not the "lich Strahd", Lich Strahd takes over Barovia and succeeds in his original plan to suck in other worlds.
If the PCs kill the lich-strahd, but not "new strahd", they still are on the path of the adventure as written.
If the PCs kill both of them, they escape Barovia and everything is flowers and bunnies.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Oh my gawd. I love this so much. I may have to steal use it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: Adventures in Phandalin [Khessa], The Dread of Strahd[Darya], Dragons of Stormwreck Isle [Rook], Baldur's Gate Mysteries [4-Player] Player: Oona in MO's Icewind Dale Ru's Current Status
OK, I don't want to hijack a thread, but your story line is awesome and that's been established. Here's my tangential problem. I'm reaching out here because I think you've shown considerable forethought about the lich's relationship to other beings and it's environment.
The lich and their phylactery - I would like to have some coherent rationale behind the destruction mechanism. I've talked with people who think it doesn't matter - this drives me crazy. I would like some scenarios rationalized.
1. The phylactery doesn't truly matter - if destroyed, the Lich can construct a second phylactery, bond themselves to it and as long as said lich isn't destroyed before completing their second phylactery, they get to go on as per usual.
2. The phylactery truly matters - If destroyed, the Lich can never again reanimate. The lich is still immortal in the sense that they must be destroyed (either for or against their will) to truly lose volition, but without their phylactery, they have no recourse for reamination. This option allows the possibility that a powerful lich might choose to inject their consciousness into another being, then go about contructing a second phylactery bonded to that hosts being, but I can, at least, appreaciate the massive complication inherent in this scenario.
3. The phylactery IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS - Without their phylactery, the lich loses its only link to its past, loses it's will, it's sense of why it once as a living and very powerful spell caster, chose this preternatural path to pursue it's goals. This is, one would think, be a fate worse then death. It's the equivalent of the lights just being turned out... lich-like Alzheimer's, I'd suppose.
I'm totally open to other possibilities, but I want to choose one of these options. I'd like the mechanic to not be so wishy washy. Thank you!
OK, I don't want to hijack a thread, but your story line is awesome and that's been established. Here's my tangential problem. I'm reaching out here because I think you've shown considerable forethought about the lich's relationship to other beings and it's environment.
The lich and their phylactery - I would like to have some coherent rationale behind the destruction mechanism. I've talked with people who think it doesn't matter - this drives me crazy. I would like some scenarios rationalized.
1. The phylactery doesn't truly matter - if destroyed, the Lich can construct a second phylactery, bond themselves to it and as long as said lich isn't destroyed before completing their second phylactery, they get to go on as per usual.
2. The phylactery truly matters - If destroyed, the Lich can never again reanimate. The lich is still immortal in the sense that they must be destroyed (either for or against their will) to truly lose volition, but without their phylactery, they have no recourse for reamination. This option allows the possibility that a powerful lich might choose to inject their consciousness into another being, then go about contructing a second phylactery bonded to that hosts being, but I can, at least, appreaciate the massive complication inherent in this scenario.
3. The phylactery IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS - Without their phylactery, the lich loses its only link to its past, loses it's will, it's sense of why it once as a living and very powerful spell caster, chose this preternatural path to pursue it's goals. This is, one would think, be a fate worse then death. It's the equivalent of the lights just being turned out... lich-like Alzheimer's, I'd suppose.
I'm totally open to other possibilities, but I want to choose one of these options. I'd like the mechanic to not be so wishy washy. Thank you!
For me, the things to keep in mind are as follows:
1) To become a lich, and make a phylactery, a wizard must DIE. Why? Well, because their soul is anchored to the phylactery. Think of it this way- they die, their soul starts to depart towards its destination realm, and the phylactery is like a net, or a stake, catching it or pinning it in place and anchoring it to this realm. As they say, you can't die twice. A Lich's body can be destroyed, but death will forever elude it.
2) The powers of a phylactery are as follows: In addition to anchoring the soul to this realm, it also creates a new body for a lich, should the old one be destroyed. It then uses the dark arts to imbue the new body with a semblance of life, animating it and attaching the soul to it.
So for me, the only REAL question is whether the soul is actually imbued into the new body, and then simply pulled back into the phylactery upon the destruction of the corpse (like a black hole or something), or whether the body is "remote controlled".
For me, 1 is Definitely out. The transformation into a Lich and binding of their soul to a phylactery requires, per published lore, ingesting potent poisons and dying as part of the process, and a lich is immune to poisons and already dead. Certainly you can handwave that and say that since they're already dead it's simple enough to bind their soul to the new phylactery should it be made, but I personally would find that unacceptable.
3 is also out, because it implies another possibility which would fit that scenario better. If the soul is truly housed within the phylactery, and the body is essentially just a drone remote controlled by it, once the source object is gone, it would instead seem to imply to me:
4) The phylactery IS the lich. With its destruction, the anchor holding the soul to this realm is gone, and as such the soul immediately flits off to its destination realm, as it intended to so long ago. The body is much like a robot drone which stopped receiving, or a puppet with its strings cut, it's immediately an inanimate object.
To me 2 seems viable and 4 seems viable, depending on whether the soul is housed in the body while it exists (in which case #2) or if it's basically housed in the phylactery and the body is just an extension of that (in which case #4). For my purposes I'm normally inclined to go with #2 as I think it's the most interesting option.
Thank you! I really appreciate creating worlds that players can interact with, and campaigns are within, but to do so, I need to have a greater array of scenarios flushed out prior to starting the game. This is one I've struggled with for quite some time. Cheers!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I have this idea, and if it's not entirely bat-guano crazy, I think I will spring it on my players some time in the next few sessions.
In the Amber Temple there is a lich named Exethanter who doesn' t remember who he is. Apparently he has no ill will towards Strahd, and presumably he and Strahd have met when Strahd comes to the temple to learn how to become a vampire.
There is also Khazan, one of the wizards who helped build Castle Ravenloft. According to the book Khazan becomes a lich and challenged Strahd, but Strahd instead asked Khazan to become his magical consultant, and Khazan agreed. Khazan goes to the Amber Temple looking for a way to become a demilich, but apparently is destroyed in the process.
It doesn't make sense to me that the model of Castle Ravenloft is in the Amber Temple in a room called "The architect's room". The castle was built before Strahd became a vampire. Why would the castle's architect be living in the Amber Temple (a place of evil knowledge) before Barovia becomes "evil"? If this architect went to live there with the model after Strahd became evil, why? What happened to this architect?
So, my original plan was that Khazan wasn't destroyed when he went to the Amber Temple to become a demilich. Khazan is the lich, he decided to take the name Exethanter. Since Khazan worked on Castle Ravenloft it would make sense for him to be the architect and have taken the model of the castle with him.
But then I had an idea that the PCs, while searching the temple, would find copies of themselves entombed in some of the amber sarcophagi, suggesting that they had been there before and that being brought to Barovia was fated to happen again and again.
Then I thought... what if the lich isn't the former Khazan, what if it's Strahd!!! (dun, dun, dunnnnn).
Bear with me:
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
An absurd endless loop. I like it.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Oh my gawd. I love this so much. I may have to
stealuse it.DM: Adventures in Phandalin [Khessa], The Dread of Strahd [Darya], Dragons of Stormwreck Isle [Rook], Baldur's Gate Mysteries [4-Player]
Player: Oona in MO's Icewind Dale
Ru's Current Status
OK, I don't want to hijack a thread, but your story line is awesome and that's been established. Here's my tangential problem. I'm reaching out here because I think you've shown considerable forethought about the lich's relationship to other beings and it's environment.
The lich and their phylactery - I would like to have some coherent rationale behind the destruction mechanism. I've talked with people who think it doesn't matter - this drives me crazy. I would like some scenarios rationalized.
1. The phylactery doesn't truly matter - if destroyed, the Lich can construct a second phylactery, bond themselves to it and as long as said lich isn't destroyed before completing their second phylactery, they get to go on as per usual.
2. The phylactery truly matters - If destroyed, the Lich can never again reanimate. The lich is still immortal in the sense that they must be destroyed (either for or against their will) to truly lose volition, but without their phylactery, they have no recourse for reamination. This option allows the possibility that a powerful lich might choose to inject their consciousness into another being, then go about contructing a second phylactery bonded to that hosts being, but I can, at least, appreaciate the massive complication inherent in this scenario.
3. The phylactery IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS - Without their phylactery, the lich loses its only link to its past, loses it's will, it's sense of why it once as a living and very powerful spell caster, chose this preternatural path to pursue it's goals. This is, one would think, be a fate worse then death. It's the equivalent of the lights just being turned out... lich-like Alzheimer's, I'd suppose.
I'm totally open to other possibilities, but I want to choose one of these options. I'd like the mechanic to not be so wishy washy. Thank you!
Thank you! I really appreciate creating worlds that players can interact with, and campaigns are within, but to do so, I need to have a greater array of scenarios flushed out prior to starting the game. This is one I've struggled with for quite some time. Cheers!