Topic: [& Sword] Liches (again)
Started by: James_Nostack
Started on: 4/2/2005
Board: Adept Press
On 4/2/2005 at 1:25am, James_Nostack wrote:
[& Sword] Liches (again)
Allow me to do some forum necromancy here and bring this thread Becoming Undead back from the grave. But I've got some quick questions on that topic.
1. If you become a Lich, do you still have a Humanity score? Does becoming undead "raise the stakes" of reaching Humanity 0?
2. It's stated that when you become a Lich, you gain a Power score like a demon. Does that come with demonic abilities? If so, how many? (Is it based off Lore, or Power - 1?) (I presume it's up to the player and GM to work out which powers are acquired.)
3. Since undead are treated like demons, does that mean a player-lich can be bound, punished, or contained?
4. Does a player-lich acquire a Need?
(Rest of the post is color.)
It's been stated in a few threads that no player in his or her right mind would bother with these rules, but it's pretty simple to construct an example of a heroic lich:
Ixla is the High Priestess of the gleaming city of Gyre. Her cult trafficks with spirits from the Netherworld, and one such demon, Slubgob the Lacerator, has sworn that when he feasts upon Ixla's immortal soul the seven pinnacles of Gyre shall topple, and the streets will be as rivers with the blood of the populace. Ixla isn't particularly renowned for her compassion, but she's not about to let Slubgob get the last laugh, either. She decides to turn herself into an undying lich to protect herself (and incidentally her city) from the vengeful demon.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 7431
On 4/2/2005 at 4:19pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [& Sword] Liches (again)
Hi there!
At last, intelligent posting about these rules. I've been waiting a long time.
1. If you become a Lich, do you still have a Humanity score? Does becoming undead "raise the stakes" of reaching Humanity 0?
If you're going by the core rules + Sorcerer & Sword, then no, Humanity is simply gone.
I'm not sure what you mean by "raise the stakes" ... becoming undead = Humanity 0 = becoming undead, so it's a static situation. If you're going by these two books.
Now! It's also possible to fold in the "demon/human" rules from The Sorcerer's Soul, just as written, into the whole situation. Brace yourself: you could use either the "demon becomes human" or the "human becomes demon" approach, as you see fit. Neat, huh?
2. It's stated that when you become a Lich, you gain a Power score like a demon. Does that come with demonic abilities? If so, how many? (Is it based off Lore, or Power - 1?) (I presume it's up to the player and GM to work out which powers are acquired.)
# Abilities = Lore. I really hope that people don't think that "Power - 1" has any special meaning in the game. The fact that Lore is typically equal to that value for many demons is a side effect, and not meaningful on its own.
As far as which abilities (and quit callin'em powers f'fucksake, that's like calling scores "attributes") are gained, that'll depend very greatly on the overall context of sorcery for this game, and the immediate context of this character and his or her sorcerous history. That's a little more specific and useable in practice than "player and GM work it out."
3. Since undead are treated like demons, does that mean a player-lich can be bound, punished, or contained?
Yep. That's part of what "demon" means.
4. Does a player-lich acquire a Need?
Huh, I didn't say that in the rules? Damn. The answer is definitely yes. (Shoulda said that!)
As for your point about heroic liches, yes, a thousand times yes! I have been astonished for years about why people keep making statements about how no one "would" do that. The lich rules make for very powerful, very vulnerable, and very dramatic characters, so why would people keep coming up with meaningless objections like "hey, that's too powerful," or "hey, that's too vulnerable?"
I think they're just weenies.
Best,
Ron
On 4/2/2005 at 9:14pm, James_Nostack wrote:
RE: [& Sword] Liches (again)
Ron Edwards wrote: If you're going by the core rules + Sorcerer & Sword, then no, Humanity is simply gone.
Here's the reason I'm asking: in conventional Sorcerer play, there's two ways to lose control of your character: (1) either your Humanity reaches 0, or (2) you suffer enormous physical damage and everyone agrees that character is dead.
So, when you become a Lich it sounds like that first condition no longer matters: Humanity 0 isn't the end, it's the beginning. Then the question becomes: how do you remove a Lich from player control? (I.e., what does the "final death" look like?)
If I'm understanding the rules correctly, a Lich may be Banished like any other demon, but can then be Contacted or Summoned back here. So that's only a temporary hindrance.
Destroying the Token will trigger the "unbound death spiral" effect, but otherwise a Lich doesn't have to worry about being unbound (p51 of &Sword). Even if you destroy the Token this only leads to Banishment, not total destruction.
Killing the Lich with massive physical damage won't necessarily do the trick either: per page 110 of the core rules, if the Lich isn't Bound at the time, she simply gets Banished to await a future Summoning. The only way to kill the Lich for keeps is to Bind it, and then beat the living hell out of it.
Is that correct? Am I overlooking anything?
The lich rules make for very powerful, very vulnerable, and very dramatic characters, so why would people keep coming up with meaningless objections like "hey, that's too powerful," or "hey, that's too vulnerable?"
On the one hand, you've got a character who is indifferent to Humanity loss and can only be killed under very specific circumstances. On the other hand, any Sorcerer can Bind, Banish, Punish, or Contain you! Also, being Undead is probably not the constant Keg Party the other Liches make it out to be.
From a gamist standpoint, it's a mixed blessing that needs to be weighed very carefully. From a sim-character point of view, it's a (sorry) grave risk. From a narrativist viewpoint, turning into a Lich might be a satisfactory conclusion to a story, but at any earlier point it's not something you would do just for laughs. So, I can see why the issue doesn't come up much.
On 4/2/2005 at 9:16pm, James_Nostack wrote:
RE: [& Sword] Liches (again)
Oh, and another question:
Can a Lich still practice sorcery, even though he or she is now treated like any other immanent demon? Can the Lich still practice necromancy?
On 4/2/2005 at 9:57pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [& Sword] Liches (again)
Hello,
The only way to kill the Lich for keeps is to Bind it, and then beat the living hell out of it.
Answered your own question.
I'm not at all interested in Gamist or Simulationist takes on anything to do with playing Sorcerer, so your comments along those lines are a big So What.
As for the Narrativist take, now here's where I'm staring at you in annoyance. Whaddaya mean only the end of a story? Are you bonkers? Didn't you just describe a great lich character, full of great story potential, in your first post to this thread? Give her the Kicker, "falls in love," and watch the sparks fly!
And yeah, the lich can't do sorcerous rituals any more. (Note the slight modification to this point if you're using the more transitional rules in The Sorcerer's Soul; but once the process to demon is complete, rituals are right out the window.) Don't forget how fucking powerful necromantic Tokens are, though - their use can often look very much like sorcerous rituals, and the rules-mechanics do a good job of covering what these characters do in novels and films.
Best,
Ron
On 4/3/2005 at 1:35am, James_Nostack wrote:
RE: [& Sword] Liches (again)
As for the Narrativist take, now here's where I'm staring at you in annoyance. Whaddaya mean only the end of a story? Are you bonkers? Didn't you just describe a great lich character, full of great story potential, in your first post to this thread?
Eh, you asked why more people didn't create Heroic Liches. My guess, perhaps phrased very poorly, was that turning yourself into an undead monster for fun and profit implies a very specific type of story. It is not, for example, the type of thing Conan would do, nor Fafhrd, nor the Gray Mouser. The fact that it can be done well doesn't mean the appeal is widespread.
Give her the Kicker, "falls in love," and watch the sparks fly!
I doubt Ixla the Undying is the type to "fall in love." But she might feel the need to bear children.
Ixla the Undying
not intended for use as a starting character
also, hasn't been playtested
Stamina 1 (Unnatural Means: bathes in starlight during the new moon)
Will 8 (Leader of Men + Aristocrat + Zest for Unlife(?))
Lore 5 (Adept)
Past 6 (Former High Priestess of Gyre)
Power 5
Telltale - white moths flutter from her throat when she laughs
Desire - Community
Need - Blood from the mouths of vampire bats
Abilities -
Psychic Force (user: Ixla)
Perception (anywhere in Gyre, user: Ixla)
Travel (anywhere in Gyre, user: Ixla)
Shadow (user: Ixla)
Command (user: Ixla)
Token -
Eh, TBD for now. Probably some kind of kris knife.
Kicker -
Has come to the decision that she must bear twin children.
On 4/6/2005 at 4:41am, dyjoots wrote:
RE: [& Sword] Liches (again)
Ron Edwards wrote:
As for your point about heroic liches, yes, a thousand times yes! I have been astonished for years about why people keep making statements about how no one "would" do that. The lich rules make for very powerful, very vulnerable, and very dramatic characters, so why would people keep coming up with meaningless objections like "hey, that's too powerful," or "hey, that's too vulnerable?"
I think they're just weenies.
Best,
Ron
as one of those people who asked something like this, i thought i'd comment.
yes, they might be weenies, but they are often just weenies that might just need a paradigm shift. i went into Sorcerer not really knowing what to expect, but with many years of a very specific style of gaming under my belt. and it wasn't the kind of stuff that Sorcerer was made for, i'm almost positive. in fact, your "weenies" remark clinches it.
from some viewpoints, becoming a Lich doesn't carry any value. these may be viewpoints that have little or nothing to do with how you designed Sorcerer, but to pass them off as "weenie" concerns seems a little... i can't think of a word or phrase because it's late, but it just doesn't seem right.
at this point in my gaming career, i have had a shift in how i view games and how i view the agendas of the people playing those games. my initial approach to understanding why someone in play would become a Lich was "why do this if it doesn't make the character more powerful?" now, i get it. but my question, when i asked it, wasn't an "objection" as much as it was an honest attempt to understand why the section was there.
the answer to the question "why do this if it doesn't make your character more powerful?" turned out to be "because making your character more powerful isn't the reason to do it." you said it yourself, "The lich rules make for very powerful, very vulnerable, and very dramatic characters..." if the person asking the question hasn't made that connection or assumption, then to me they are justified in asking.
i know you said you weren't interested in non-Nar views on Sorcerer stuff, but i felt it bore saying anyway. maybe someone else is.