Path of the Lich feats

I wish they had made this slightly more generic, enough to cover the Baelnorn.  I know they've sort of left the Baelnorn in a grey area with the way Lich's are written in 5e, but a nod to other uses of that archetype would have been nice.  That, or I suppose having a Path of the Baelnorn would have been nice.

Quote from johnkzin >>

I wish they had made this slightly more generic, enough to cover the Baelnorn.  I know they've sort of left the Baelnorn in a grey area with the way Lich's are written in 5e, but a nod to other uses of that archetype would have been nice.  That, or I suppose having a Path of the Baelnorn would have been nice.

 What’s a Barlnorn? Is that some kind of warrior lich?

Quote from cergonian123 >>

Quote from johnkzin >>

I wish they had made this slightly more generic, enough to cover the Baelnorn.  I know they've sort of left the Baelnorn in a grey area with the way Lich's are written in 5e, but a nod to other uses of that archetype would have been nice.  That, or I suppose having a Path of the Baelnorn would have been nice.

 What’s a Barlnorn? Is that some kind of warrior lich?

 A baelnorn is basically a good lich, is the short version. Or at least a non-evil lich-adjacent creature.

To the OP, in the other thread you started, you criticize the choices in the villainous subclass UA for not being villainous enough. Now you want something that’s not a villian at all in the same grouping?

In earlier editions, they were a type of  Faerun elf who had taken on lichdom to protect their group (tribe?).  They aren’t evil, which would also imply that they don’t consume souls.

I want the path of the lich to not be inherently evil (soul consuming).  IMO, due to the Baelnorn, liches shouldn’t be inherently villains (or WOTC should address the discrepancy instead of ignoring it).  And I never said the other isn’t villainous enough, I said they aren’t villains.  The problem isn’t “not villainous enough”, the problem is putting non-villainous things under a villain title.