QuoteI would have suggested that the type of person willing to essentially sacrifice their own life to gain undead immortality would more then likely have been evil to start with and then adding the negative energy taint on top of that would finish off the rest.

Yeah, liches are described as born from vile rituals, human sacrifice and so on - well like Voldemort I guess - so there's always strong aspect of choice there. You don't become lich by accident I guess.

QuoteNot exactly. Arrogance (phah, the dangers of undeath must be overstated), ignorance (undeath makes you evil?), a desire to accomplish something else (I need to protect my grandchildren), or just a general human fear of death.

Yes. But you need human sacrifice for lichdom so even noble intentions won't help.

QuoteYou know, I don't understand this constant, deep need on the part of many people in the gaming hobby to *insist* that traditionally evil, wicked, savage and terrifying villains like vampires and liches should somehow not be EVIL.

The artistic interpretation or "reimagining* of them is that they are somehow an exception, or thy are misunderstood, or they experienced trauma in their childhood or early adult years, and blah, blah, blah.

NO. They are evil, terrifying and EVIL monsters. Some things, like Halflings, or Gnomes, or Minotaurs even, can be reinterpreted to an extent, and everything is fine, and even interesting and fun.

Reinterpreting some other things though...just comes off as stupid to me. Instead of having a terrifying, evil villain opposing the adventurers, somehow the vampire or lich is a tragic, misunderstood figure that the adventurers should cry over and seek to "understand them".

But Shark, I see no push for reinterpretation of lich really, there were some positive energy rare equivalents, but generally speaking I see no sympathy for lich.
Now sympathy for vampires is born from gothic fiction, when they stopped being just form of ghouls let's say and become mysterious and possibly sexy Romanian aristocrates. And of course as vampirism is curse you can accuire in most fiction against own will - that adds another layer to call potentially sympathetic vampire.

At this point it's not even re-interpretation in my opinion. Good or at least tormented and full of inner turmoil vampire was with us for a long long time, almost as long as modern concept of vampire. And it facts it works really well in my opinion - thematically it's like deep well of themes, and options, and dramas.

Now of course still vampire dedicated to evil will be terrible opponent, but the same human alive evil high level wizard will be terrible opponent. Vampires are cursed humans in most fiction including D&D, holding their own personality and soul they had while being alive. So I generally treat them as humans (still of course much more likely to succumb to evil). Same go with afflicted were-people if we talk about this topc.

QuoteI think it makes for better game and adventure design to maintain particular standards, and a campaign that keeps such traditional icons of villainy makes for a stronger, more vivid, and memorable campaign.

Is it. Maybe I watched and read too much stories, but for me most of classical monsters are more of bore and chore at this point. Give me weird unconventional villain with weird abilities any day instead.

QuoteIMO, Vampires and Liches have a similar idea behind them; those who'd drain life from others to make their own richer.

I think you can get a lot of mileage with that concept.

Difference of course is vampires are generally victims of terrible curse, while liches are dedicated self-made men.
But then there are exceptions:

In The Witcher universe vampire are inhuman shapeshifting abberations brought to Witcher!World by Convergence of Spheres.
They are omnivorse as men, but much more stronger and magical, and blood for them is strong intoxicant, so most vampire praying on humans are drunkards and junkies (there is abstinent vampire in stories that get clean after he get caught by angry mob, after drunkedly flying on full speed into wall, and then spend 300 years regenerating himself from small scraps they left around.

There's an interesting theory I had once: liches are spawned from a desperate desire to control everything, even one's own lifespan, whereas vampires are often the result of NOT being able to control yourself.

As far as 'good' undead, they should be few and far between (unless you're running an Eberron campaign, since the deathless fill that slot perfectly). It is an inherently wrong act to try to subvert the natural state of things and the cycle of life and death. There can be exceptions; a guardian entity might not be evil, but such creatures should be bound to their tasks in such a way that it limits their influence (FR's baelnorns are a good example of this; most are hidden away, whiling away the millennia and will actually pay for news of the outside world).

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 08, 2021, 05:52:20 AMYes. But you need human sacrifice for lichdom so even noble intentions won't help.

It varies on setting (generally it does require some sketchy components but not always human sacrifice), but If I had a quarter for every person that sacrificed others, convinced it was for greater good and noble intentions, I would be a billionaire.

"Il just sacrifice convicted criminals, they where going to die anyway. As a immortal, il be able to protect the country much better then the existing king'.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 08, 2021, 05:52:20 AM
[Vampires are people, too.]

Don't vampires need to drink human blood and thereby kill people? Victim of a curse, sure...but the good thing to do would be to walk out into the sunlight: sacrifice yourself to save your village. No matter how kind or charming a vampire is, it's still evil due to pride or selfishness.

Vampires are spirits puppeting corpses.

On the original topic, gaming-wise, it seems like a trivial detail what the name of a lich's soul cage or container is. It isn't mentioned in BECMI D&D, for example, and I don't recall any outcry about that. I think the more interesting follow-up topic is about uses of liches and undead more broadly:

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 07, 2021, 08:11:24 PM
I had always thought the insistence that Necromancy was evil was due to two things:

1: You're going against the natural order.

2: You're messing with corpses, and a lot of cultures have serious respect for the dead.

Also, I was under the impression that the requirements to be a lich involved some INCREDIBLY evil things. Like sacrificing an infant or a bunch of virgins. The idea that killing something solely for your own benefit is the epitome of evil. Like becoming a Dragon in Dark Sun (which involves mass murder on top of sucking the life out of the world for 20 something levels), it's just unavoidable.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 08, 2021, 08:03:52 AM
There's an interesting theory I had once: liches are spawned from a desperate desire to control everything, even one's own lifespan, whereas vampires are often the result of NOT being able to control yourself.

As far as 'good' undead, they should be few and far between (unless you're running an Eberron campaign, since the deathless fill that slot perfectly). It is an inherently wrong act to try to subvert the natural state of things and the cycle of life and death. There can be exceptions; a guardian entity might not be evil, but such creatures should be bound to their tasks in such a way that it limits their influence (FR's baelnorns are a good example of this; most are hidden away, whiling away the millennia and will actually pay for news of the outside world).

I think the extent to which undead are evil is very setting dependent. Eberron is one exception - but there are potentially plenty of other settings with good undead. My son's setting I've been playing with is Incan-inspired fantasy, where past kings are mummies full of ancestral wisdom to help guide the present. Many cultures have at least some association of positive ghosts, undead, and/or death gods - like Isis collecting the body parts of Osiris to raise him from the dead, and Koschei the Deathless in Russian folk tales - who is frightening but not purely evil.

I don't buy that it's inherently wrong to subvert the natural state of things. By this logic, anyone who does magic is evil, along with any magical creatures. But in many settings, magic isn't evil -- and often, magic is a part of the natural order. There are magical beings that may represent positive order to the world - like Chinese dragons, the Thunder Bird, or the Fae to some pagan traditions.

Regarding PsyXypher's comment -- I can find no mention of sacrificing an infant or virgins. The AD&D2 book "Van Richten's Guide to Liches" has a description of the process, which involves a bunch of money and magic plus a heart that is preferably from a sentient creature. Killing a sentient creature just to use its heart would be evil, but using a donated heart or the heart of an enemy killed for other reasons isn't evil. Here's the full description:

http://voltor.narod.ru/vr/vr05_02.htm

I think Koschei the Deathless is an interesting model for a neutral or ambiguous lich. He is frightening, and sometimes a rival or problem, but also sometimes a source of aid or wisdom for heroes. I'm now pondering including a neutral lich in one of my Land of New Horizons adventures along these lines.

But there is an inherent, though not explicit necessarily, notion that necromancy and the undead *requires* "life-energy" to sustain itself.

Of course this is not universally true - but it's prevalent enough to be combined with corruption, entropy and decay enough to give it a highly unambiguous predatory aspect.

And if "evil" and "good" have any meaning in your setting other than words to bandy around for the sake of bickering, the very nature of what "necromantic" energy is given its capacity to "animate" and even fuel the needs of the undead, I think stretch the limits of "neutrality".

Not that it *couldn't* be done. But I don't think you could be "good" and be a Necromancer with the standard assumptions of D&D, at least over the long haul. The idea that spells are simply "powers" blinds people the reality that the assumption is a lot of study and practice goes into learning these arts, and such things will inevitably go south at some point.

And that's just talking about non-sentient undead. Once you get into sentient Undead... assuming all the traditional tropes are in place, it's pretty difficult to maintain much less utilize without crossing some very thin boundaries.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 08, 2021, 08:03:52 AM
There's an interesting theory I had once: liches are spawned from a desperate desire to control everything, even one's own lifespan, whereas vampires are often the result of NOT being able to control yourself.

As far as 'good' undead, they should be few and far between (unless you're running an Eberron campaign, since the deathless fill that slot perfectly). It is an inherently wrong act to try to subvert the natural state of things and the cycle of life and death. There can be exceptions; a guardian entity might not be evil, but such creatures should be bound to their tasks in such a way that it limits their influence (FR's baelnorns are a good example of this; most are hidden away, whiling away the millennia and will actually pay for news of the outside world).

The only good undead is a dead undead 

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 08, 2021, 12:12:09 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 08, 2021, 05:52:20 AM
[Vampires are people, too.]

Don't vampires need to drink human blood and thereby kill people? Victim of a curse, sure...but the good thing to do would be to walk out into the sunlight: sacrifice yourself to save your village. No matter how kind or charming a vampire is, it's still evil due to pride or selfishness.

Does the vampire need to drink enough blood to kill the victim?  I wonder if a vamp had a "herd" of humans that he could take a little bit of blood from several of them l to satisfy the hunger, and yet leave the humans healthy? 

I think the Vampire: Masquerade game had something like this (only played it once back in 1991).

But the D&D vampire drains levels, or does necrotic damage (depending on the edition) so there is a life-energy/soul draining component to their blood drinking.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 02:52:25 PM

Regarding PsyXypher's comment -- I can find no mention of sacrificing an infant or virgins. The AD&D2 book "Van Richten's Guide to Liches" has a description of the process, which involves a bunch of money and magic plus a heart that is preferably from a sentient creature. Killing a sentient creature just to use its heart would be evil, but using a donated heart or the heart of an enemy killed for other reasons isn't evil. Here's the full description:

Was more of an assumption than a statement of fact.

Also, when I referred to going against the natural order of things, I meant the fact that reanimating a corpse effectively takes it out of the life cycle, so it can nourish the soil, the soil can't grow plants and those plants can't feed animals and so on.

Though you're right about setting dependent-ness. I remember a 4chan Greentext talking about one guy played a Necromancer who preached necromancy as a replacement for dangerous labor. Tragically, his life's work was ruined by adventurers from another campaign his GM was running.

Quote from: tenbones on November 08, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
But there is an inherent, though not explicit necessarily, notion that necromancy and the undead *requires* "life-energy" to sustain itself.

Of course this is not universally true - but it's prevalent enough to be combined with corruption, entropy and decay enough to give it a highly unambiguous predatory aspect.

Vampires feed on blood, but most other undead don't feed like this in traditional myth and fantasy. For example, elder Hamlet's ghost is scary, but he isn't draining the life force of the living to get his revenge. Likewise for other ancestral spirits, revenants, and folk tale figures. Even in D&D, liches - along with ghosts, mummies and many others - aren't portrayed as predatory. They're often evil, but they don't have to kill the living to survive.

Outside of D&D, as I said, there are plenty of good-aligned undead, from Osiris to Mexican spirits of the dead to Koschei to Baron Samdi. Much of European Christian myth tend to portray ghosts and other undead as evil, but there are many pagan and non-European counter-examples. There's also 20th century fantasy going back many decades, long before any modern trends like Twilight. Casper the Friendly Ghost started in 1945, Deadman in 1967, and Blade in 1973.

Quote from: tenbones on November 08, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
And if "evil" and "good" have any meaning in your setting other than words to bandy around for the sake of bickering, the very nature of what "necromantic" energy is given its capacity to "animate" and even fuel the needs of the undead, I think stretch the limits of "neutrality".

Not that it *couldn't* be done. But I don't think you could be "good" and be a Necromancer with the standard assumptions of D&D, at least over the long haul. The idea that spells are simply "powers" blinds people the reality that the assumption is a lot of study and practice goes into learning these arts, and such things will inevitably go south at some point.

What specific assumption are you taking here, aside from the supposed predatory requirement? Even some sort of required predatory behavior doesn't strike me as inherently evil. There are predatory races like cat-people that have to eat meat, but they are usually not portrayed as inherently evil.

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 08, 2021, 05:22:06 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 02:52:25 PM
Regarding PsyXypher's comment -- I can find no mention of sacrificing an infant or virgins. The AD&D2 book "Van Richten's Guide to Liches" has a description of the process, which involves a bunch of money and magic plus a heart that is preferably from a sentient creature. Killing a sentient creature just to use its heart would be evil, but using a donated heart or the heart of an enemy killed for other reasons isn't evil.

Was more of an assumption than a statement of fact.

Also, when I referred to going against the natural order of things, I meant the fact that reanimating a corpse effectively takes it out of the life cycle, so it can nourish the soil, the soil can't grow plants and those plants can't feed animals and so on.

Though you're right about setting dependent-ness.

Right. It depends on the cosmology / theology of the setting, which will vary. Some cultures deliberately set corpses out for them to be eaten by scavengers and decomposers - so re-animating a fleshy corpse might be evil for them, though not necessarily skeletons or ghosts. But many cultures deliberately attempt to keep corpses whole rather than allowing them to be eaten by scavengers and decomposers. The Incans, like the Egyptians, often mummified their dead to prevent decomposition. Christian practices vary, but many sects emphasized keeping the corpse whole - such as storing them in sealed crypts.

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 08, 2021, 05:22:06 PM
I remember a 4chan Greentext talking about one guy played a Necromancer who preached necromancy as a replacement for dangerous labor. Tragically, his life's work was ruined by adventurers from another campaign his GM was running.

It's an interesting concept. I played a similar character in a steampunk one-shot game recently, though he came to a similar end.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2021, 05:35:53 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 08, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
But there is an inherent, though not explicit necessarily, notion that necromancy and the undead *requires* "life-energy" to sustain itself.

Of course this is not universally true - but it's prevalent enough to be combined with corruption, entropy and decay enough to give it a highly unambiguous predatory aspect.

Vampires feed on blood, but most other undead don't feed like this in traditional myth and fantasy. For example, elder Hamlet's ghost is scary, but he isn't draining the life force of the living to get his revenge. Likewise for other ancestral spirits, revenants, and folk tale figures. Even in D&D, liches - along with ghosts, mummies and many others - aren't portrayed as predatory. They're often evil, but they don't have to kill the living to survive.

Outside of D&D, as I said, there are plenty of good-aligned undead, from Osiris to Mexican spirits of the dead to Koschei to Baron Samdi. Much of European Christian myth tend to portray ghosts and other undead as evil, but there are many pagan and non-European counter-examples. There's also 20th century fantasy going back many decades, long before any modern trends like Twilight. Casper the Friendly Ghost started in 1945, Deadman in 1967, and Blade in 1973.

Quote from: tenbones on November 08, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
And if "evil" and "good" have any meaning in your setting other than words to bandy around for the sake of bickering, the very nature of what "necromantic" energy is given its capacity to "animate" and even fuel the needs of the undead, I think stretch the limits of "neutrality".

Not that it *couldn't* be done. But I don't think you could be "good" and be a Necromancer with the standard assumptions of D&D, at least over the long haul. The idea that spells are simply "powers" blinds people the reality that the assumption is a lot of study and practice goes into learning these arts, and such things will inevitably go south at some point.

What specific assumption are you taking here, aside from the supposed predatory requirement? Even some sort of required predatory behavior doesn't strike me as inherently evil. There are predatory races like cat-people that have to eat meat, but they are usually not portrayed as inherently evil.

Dude, you need to study Mexican customs/beliefs before talking.

Only one day, (two really because children and adults are separated) the spirits of your dead family wander in the world of the living and are given offerings of their favourite food/drinks/toys alongside flowers, candles (so they can find their way with the zempazutchil and the light). It's more worship of the ancestors than any undead shit.

The vampires in nahuatl culture were not undead but Nahuales, like the tlahuelpuchi.

Ghosts aren't undead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_Mexican_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_folklore_by_region#The_Americas

I don't remember a single undead in precolumbian myth in all of México. Blood suckers, and sucubi but not undead.

Bolding mine

Lets see, hunting animals to eat/dress isn't an evil act, would you say the same about hunting sentient beings?

Lets take your example, cat people, they eat meat, which so far has no moral charge. If they hunt down wolf people to eat them? is that the same as hunting wild boars? What about hunting humans to eat them?

In the real world we have real bloodsucking animals that suck blood to live, animals aren't moral agents lacking the capacity to make moral judgments. Therefore their acts are neither moral nor immoral but amoral.

Now back to the vampire, if it drinks human blood (or any other sentient species) it's at best a parasite and at worst a predator.

Lets go with the parasite first: Is it amoral to drink the blood of unwilling sentient victims to stay alive? No, it's immoral because it violates consent.

Now lets take the predator: Is it amoral to drink the blood of any sentient being and thus killing it probably creating another predator in the process? No, it's immoral since the only time killing is a moral thing to do is when defending yourself against unprovoked and unjustified violence.

But then again I'm not a progressive.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 06:15:28 PM
Dude, you need to study Mexican customs/beliefs before talking.

Only one day, (two really because children and adults are separated) the spirits of your dead family wander in the world of the living and are given offerings of their favourite food/drinks/toys alongside flowers, candles (so they can find their way with the zempazutchil and the light). It's more worship of the ancestors than any undead shit.

The vampires in nahuatl culture were not undead but Nahuales, like the tlahuelpuchi.

Ghosts aren't undead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_Mexican_culture

There is nothing in that link to say that ghosts either are undead or are not undead, or that contradicts anything that I said. In D&D, "undead" is a broad game category that includes not just physical creatures like vampires and liches, but also incorporeal spirits of the dead like ghosts, wraiths, and spectres. That's not a modern D&D thing - it's been true since at least AD&D1.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 08, 2021, 06:15:28 PM
Now back to the vampire, if it drinks human blood (or any other sentient species) it's at best a parasite and at worst a predator.

Lets go with the parasite first: Is it amoral to drink the blood of unwilling sentient victims to stay alive? No, it's immoral because it violates consent.

Now lets take the predator: Is it amoral to drink the blood of any sentient being and thus killing it probably creating another predator in the process? No, it's immoral since the only time killing is a moral thing to do is when defending yourself against unprovoked and unjustified violence.

By your definition, pretty much every adventurer I have ever seen is evil -- because they both harm and kill other sentient beings, usually not in pure self-defense. More broadly:

(1) In many if not most myths, vampires can drink the blood of non-sentient animals - not just humans. This is the behavior of some fictional good vampires like Angel (from the TV series), who typically drinks sheep or pig blood. In English, "predator" is an animal that hunts other animals - not something that specifically eats only sentient beings.

(2) Even if the rules are that they can only gain sustenance from sentient beings, the vampire could feed only from either willing donors or targets that they would harm for other reasons. Willing donors are not impossible -- much of the whole modern medical system uses donated blood and other organs to keep others alive.

There will be more such changes. Because it never stops. But it looks like Paizo is doomed anyway, with those crazy union demands.

It will spread from thing to thing, and nobody is going to stop them.