D&D 5E (2024) The Price of a Soul (Lich Path problems)

[Paul Farquhar]

Resurrection is rare and expensive.

So is assassintion. And is generally reserved for heads of state and the like, who have no problem accessing the funds required.

 

[Distracted DM]

IIRC Descent into Avernus has you literally burning souls for fuel in your mad max war-car.

 

[Clint_L]

That is a very good way to think about it! I would also add that there's another way one could look at it, which is that one's morality doesn't change as you get "better" at a thing, but rather that your morality has been set by just doing a thing at all in the first place.

If you as a PC make the decision in the game world to transform yourself into a lich... your morality has pretty much been set and determined. And thus you need not worry about "counting points" on the "evil" scale based on what game mechanics you get and at what levels and how much those mechanics are "worth". It doesn't matter if your 4th level mechanic is "more evil" than your 8th level one or whatever, because the fact is you are becoming a lich! That right there is all the "evil" scale we need.

But do liches have to be evil? I use non-evil liches all the time. For example, when I ran my revised White Plume Mountain a few months back, I made the Big Bad the lich Kerpatis, who, like a Deravkin lich, was held together by his magical experimentations and a kind of fungus. He was mad, due to his rotted brain, but not evil.

I would argue that the evil here is very much coming from the soul mechanic and not from wanting to extend one's existence through undeath.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, and at what point does unlife interfere with the process? Is the soul visible leaving the body to people who can see in the Astral? Are people in the Astral able to see these souls traveling through there and interact with them? When someone is raised or resurrected, how does the afterlife feel about that? What impact does it have on the afterlife and its other inhabitants? Why are atheists going to Hell? Does every afterlife benefit from souls in the same way? If so, why do some gods oppose undeath and some don't seem to care, or actively encourage it? If they benefit in different ways, why and how?

Noting that souls move around the Great Wheel like playing pieces in Candyland isn't quite the same as having a real thought-out system.

(Also, Chains of Asmodeus is canoical-ish, but I wouldn't say a product by another company that only exists on DMs Guild is the final word on anything.)

I think you're asking for too much granularity. We already know that after dying the soul leaves the body and travels through the astral plane to the outerplanar destination. That's sufficient. The questions you ask should be up to the DM to work out if they ever come up.

At what point does unlife interfere with the process? When it consumes the soul. Most undead don't have souls. Exceptions like Vampires and Liches are, exceptions.

Is a soul leaving the body visible to those who can see astrally? Up to the DM. In 43 years of playing and DMing this has never come up in a game I've been in.

Are people in the astral able to see and interact with these souls? Up to the DM. In 43 years of playing and DMing this has never come up in a game I've been in.

How does the afterlife feel about that? Up to the DM. For my game, since souls are the major source of a god's power, raising someone is the cleric, through his god, taking a small portion of power away from the god the soul worshipped. One god taking even a small amount of power away from a god, which may never come back since people who are alive can change deities, indebts the raising god to the god who is losing that bit of power. Clerics do not lightly indebt their god to another god, and so raises are very rare in my game.

What impact does it have on the afterlife and other inhabitants? Up to the DM. In 43 years of playing and DMing this has never come up in a game I've been in.

Why do atheists go to hell? Up to the DM. In my game it's an incentive imposed by the gods for mortals to pick a god to follow. It's how they get their power after all.

Does every afterlife benefit from souls in the same way? This has been answered. It's no. Some souls go to the lower planes and become larva, a currency of the lower planes. Others go to the upper planes and become petitioners.

If so, why do some gods oppose undeath and some don't seem to care, or actively encourage it? This has also been answered. Portfolios and personality.

If they benefit in different ways, why and how? This has also been answered. Larva are consumed as food and power, or sometimes turned into minor demons/devils, etc. Petitioners are eventually absorbed into their god, become a part of that god and increasing the god's power.

Most of what you ask rarely, if ever, comes up in the game. It would be a waste of space for WotC to cement what the answers to those things are instead of allowing DM's to come up with personal answers for their tables.

 

[Maxperson]

Soul Coins do not destroy the soul, they trap it. Unless I am mistaken, the soul can be released with a level 3 spell (with no material component), or using the charges (e.g. asking it three questions).

What is proposed here is completely new for 5th ed.

If by completely new, you mean there from the beginning, you are correct.

The 5e MM says that liches feed mortal souls to their phylacteries.

The 5e MM says that souls that descend to the lower planes(abyss) are turned into Manes. Demon lords feed on manes, destroying them utterly. Soul consumed and destroyed.

The 5e MM says that a specter is doomed to the material plane, it's only end is the oblivion that comes with the destruction of its soul.

The 5e MM says that a yugoloth who has been permanently destroyed can be restored through a ritual requiring the expenditure of souls.

The 5e DMG includes Blackrazor which has a devour soul ability with similar can only be restored by a wish language.

The 5e DMG includes the Eye of Vecna which has a chance to tear your soul from your body and devour it when you use the Eye's powers.

The only real issue with the lich feat is that it happens at 4th level. It really should just consume a portion of the soul, marking it for later consumption when the jar is turned into a true phylactery.

 

[Maxperson]

It has been discussed before that assassins need to have some way to block resurrection.

Not really. Souls can choose not to return and many would just stay in the afterlife. Especially good people who are the most likely to have people who want to bring them back. The upper planes are idyllic for them. On the lower planes, demons, devils, etc. trap souls or turn them into manes/lemurs. They can presumably block the return of trapped souls.

Resurrection magics are in the game almost entirely for PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

So is assassintion. And is generally reserved for heads of state and the like, who have no problem accessing the funds required.

They're dead and cannot access any funds. The heirs who now have all the power could access those funds, but I doubt that very many would. They now have the power and funds, so why give it back? And that's before getting into souls that do not want to or cannot return due to being trapped.

 

[Mort]

But do liches have to be evil?

Traditionally, yes. The process to become a lich generally involves lots of murderous evil rituals and soul consuming rites.

But over the years D&D has introduced plenty of exceptions. Like Baelnorn (elven ancestral liches in the forgotten realms). Certainly it's no longer unique.

I use non-evil liches all the time. For example, when I ran my revised White Plume Mountain a few months back, I made the Big Bad the lich Kerpatis, who, like a Deravkin lich, was held together by his magical experimentations and a kind of fungus. He was mad, due to his rotted brain, but not evil.

I would argue that the evil here is very much coming from the soul mechanic and not from wanting to extend one's existence through undeath.

Evil is the standard, as most liches consume souls.

But as stated above, no reason to not have an exception here or there. I have, very occasionally, but generally, I like to keep liches very evil.

 

[Maxperson]

Traditionally, yes. The process to become a lich generally involves lots of murderous evil rituals and soul consuming rites.

But over the years D&D has introduced plenty of exceptions. Like Baelnorn (eleven ancestral liches in the forgotten realms). Certainly it's no longer unique.

Yes. I doubt the path we see is the only path to lichdom. It's probably not even the only evil path to lichdom.

 

[fuindordm]

Yes. I doubt the path we see is the only path to lichdom. It's probably not even the only evil path to lichdom.

Also Eberron arguably has elven liches powered by positive energy (the Undying Court). I don't remember whether Keith Baker ever mapped them to a specific undead type, but Eberron also has positive energy mummies ("oathbound" IIRC).

You can behave as a morally good character in every conceivable way, but if your immortality is sustained by consuming souls you are still evil IMO. A lich philanthropist would still be an abomination in the eyes of every good-aligned deity. But if your PC finds an alternative mechanism like siphoning positive energy from a willing angel, then why not.