Alternate Lich Ending?

[👁]

The original Lich ending was really disappointing to me because, I had been playing a Neutral Lich for the entire game, then in the final speech my character basically wages war on the living or shirks her duty, and there's no middle ground, the game doesn't account for the possibility that you could even want to hold onto the kingdom unless you also want to DESTROY THE LIVING.

There are other lich kingdoms where the living and dead co-exist, and the game even allows you to recruit a guy to help create a kingdom where the living and dead co-exist in peace, passing laws to that effect, but then it fails to account for the possibility in that speech.

It really completely broke character from how I had been playing until that point, the undead had been a bulwark against the damned, with a Lich Queen ruling over an undead kingdom where the living and the dead crossed paths and traded in forbidden magics and secrets.

It doesn't even make sense for a lich to want to exterminate all life, what would they even get out of it? It's a really dumb undead cliche when you think about it, a goal only suitable for the mindless dead lashing out blindly on instinct, or for those rare philosophical types who see life as an abomination.

Even on the literal Lich World of Eox there is a habitat set aside to act like a zoo or a nature preserve for the living.

So... Does the New DLC provide an Alternate Ending for the Lich?

[Dryad]

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Originally posted by Dryad:

Believe me, I tried pounding this into his head, he won't believe that that's true

Because you are wrong. You can try to spew incorrect information all you wants to but that doesnt make it any less incorrect. The core rulebooks are the rules for pathfinder in the entirety, yes individual books for specific settings may override them, but that doesnt mean they don't apply unless overridden. For instance, a Fighter in the core rulebook is the same as a fighter in Lost Omens, maybe have some different options in Lost Omens but they still use the base class from the core rulebook, why? Because the core rulebook is the base rules. Saying that the base underlying rules don't apply to anything built off those rules (again unless otherwise specificed) is just plain stupid.

My argument, to reiterate, is that Campaign Setting books override the Core line books which are generic. The Campaign Setting books, to my knowledge, are lore primarily and any mechanical options that are present in them are in addition to the Core line books unless otherwise stated.

Lore-wise the Campaign Setting books are the books to use when arguing Golarion lore, the Core books are generic for any setting and to not understand that is, to be blunt, to be incorrect regarding the lore. Pathfinder 1e RPG's system is not built on the understanding that it is the end all be all for Golarion, but a generic system for any world someone wants to use, same as the system it is based on: D&D 3.5 edition.

[Dryad]

Originally posted by 👁:

Originally posted by Dryad:

Strictly speaking, Angelic alignment in PF1e is "Any Good". The Lawful Good ones are Archons, Neutral Good is Agathions, and Chaotic Good is Azata.

What do you call a Lawful Good angel who is forced to make a choice between law and good and is broken by the dilemma, becoming lawful neutral instead.

Also props if you can name the character I'm trying to think of because I tried to google it.

Cannot think of any specific angel that's Lawful Neutral, but the LN outsiders in PF1e are Aeons and Inevitables.

[Xanatharr]

Originally posted by Dryad:

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Because you are wrong. You can try to spew incorrect information all you wants to but that doesnt make it any less incorrect. The core rulebooks are the rules for pathfinder in the entirety, yes individual books for specific settings may override them, but that doesnt mean they don't apply unless overridden. For instance, a Fighter in the core rulebook is the same as a fighter in Lost Omens, maybe have some different options in Lost Omens but they still use the base class from the core rulebook, why? Because the core rulebook is the base rules. Saying that the base underlying rules don't apply to anything built off those rules (again unless otherwise specificed) is just plain stupid.

My argument, to reiterate, is that Campaign Setting books override the Core line books which are generic. The Campaign Setting books, to my knowledge, are lore primarily and any mechanical options that are present in them are in addition to the Core line books unless otherwise stated.

Lore-wise the Campaign Setting books are the books to use when arguing Golarion lore, the Core books are generic for any setting and to not understand that is, to be blunt, to be incorrect regarding the lore. Pathfinder 1e RPG's system is not built on the understanding that it is the end all be all for Golarion, but a generic system for any world someone wants to use, same as the system it is based on: D&D 3.5 edition.

Absolutely correct, if the book in questions is meant as an official update to whatever setting, the revisited book was quite obviously not mention as an official update, it was merely flavor as evidenced by the fact that it doesnt even reference the setting. I also stated REPEATEDLY that they are the rules unless overridden. So yes, if some lore book comes along and says this is how things work in Lost Omens and its different then the core books then yeah, its different. Hence why when an actual quote from the official adventure path said that becoming a lich makes you evil if you were to begin with I admitted I was wrong about becoming a lich requiring that you be evil. So I will once again point out, that unless they have been overrridden then the core rule books still apply, and to argue that they dont (again unless specifically overridden) is foolish.

[Xanatharr]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

You keep saying that, the lore says this, the lore says that. Where, where does the lore say that? Hint, most likely the answer is nowhere. And I will repeat again because apparently you don't understand how things work, the core rulebooks are core rules for the setting of pathfinder. Unless otherwise overwritten they do apply to any and all pathfinder games. Your discount of offical rules is nonsense and inane. And I know what you told me, but you are now in regards to this as you have been in regards to alot of other things you have said, wrong. You keep claiming lore and now saying its backed up by many books but as of yet have failed to provide even a single shred of evidence. So again, I will ask, whats your source? Not some neboulous nonsense like lore, what specific piece of lore, exact quote, do you have that backs up your claim?

There are countless videos on the internet which go into a deep dive about the game's setting, covering its history, it's cultures, its deities and planar cosmology. Finding the proof you want from me is extremely easy, barely takes any effort to look it up.


But one simile that I like to use when discussing this topic is 'Cob Planet' from Rick and Morty.

Long story short, Cob Planet is a world in which literally everything is on a cob, right down to its very atomic structure. Visitors to the planet are fine in the short term. But if they continue to spend too much time exposed to the environment, they would eventually mutate into cob people themselves, as their bodies would assimilate the cob atoms into their own physiology.

And that's similar to how the outer planes work. The Abyss is made out of the metaphysical essence of Chaotic Evil, and every second you spend exposed to its environment, you are continuing to absorb that essence into yourself.

Over time, a visitor would find themselves subconsciously shifting towards Chaotic Evil alignment if they did not find a way to escape the plane.

Conversely, if somebody found themselves trapped in Elysium, they would gradually shift their alignment to Chaotic Good, or they would shift towards Lawful Good if they ended up in Heaven.

Only the Prime Material Plane has the freedom to dictate their own alignment. The outer planes do not, because they are constructed out of a specific alignment.

-------------------------

Ironically, if we were discussing 2nd edition, this wouldn't be an issue. Since Pathfinder 2nd Edition has rewrote their setting from the ground up in order to distance itself from D&D and WotC.

But since you insist on sticking to 1st edition's writing, that is what I'm using.

Once again, its not on me to prove your claims, its on you. If they are so extremely easy to find then you should have no problems finding them to prove your point. And maybe it would be easy to prove in 2e, or D&D, or any other system, but we aren't talking about those systems are we? We are talking about Pathfinder 1E.

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Um, easily could have been Asmodeus, why are you assuming angels or fallen angels predate Asmodeus, since the angels themselves were the creations of the gods and Asmodeus himself was one of the very first gods, and depending on the stories Hell predates Asmodeus. Also, Asmodeus has absolutely nothing to do with the Abyss, his realm is hell not the abyss, two wildly different places. Plus, as you personally have mentioned and others have mentioned as well, the planes have their own energy, so yeah, an evil angel might overtime become infused with the stuff of the plane itself and end up changing, but its not a result of their alignment change. You argument is flawed and once again, you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claim.

There are several different origin stories of Asmodeus, as befits the Lord of Lies. But the one I'm familiar with is that the first Devils were created by Angels who became corrupted after spending an extensive period of time fighting in the Abyss and shifted towards evil from their experiences there.

Asmodeus realized just how difficult waging war against the Abyss was going to be from a logistical standpoint, so he created the Nine Hells to effectively fuel his war effort by harvesting the souls of sinners and turning them into more devils.

---------------------

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Because you are wrong. You can try to spew incorrect information all you wants to but that doesnt make it any less incorrect. The core rulebooks are the rules for pathfinder in the entirety, yes individual books for specific settings may override them, but that doesnt mean they don't apply unless overridden. For instance, a Fighter in the core rulebook is the same as a fighter in Lost Omens, maybe have some different options in Lost Omens but they still use the base class from the core rulebook, why? Because the core rulebook is the base rules. Saying that the base underlying rules don't apply to anything built off those rules (again unless otherwise specificed) is just plain stupid.

No, we are not wrong. If you want clarification on what I mean when I say the RAW is meant for agnostic settings, I'll use D&D as an example. Since D&D has multiple settings, where as Pathfinder only has 1 that I'm familiar with.


In the Forgotten Realms, divine magic is impossible to wield, unless you have the patron support of a deity helping you out. When somebody casts divine magic, they transform themselves into a conduit through which the power of their deity is able to interact with the mortal plane.


Where as in the Eberron setting, divine magic is merely a separate form of magic that functions differently from that of the arcane. Deities simply teach their followers how to wield this magic, but the patronage of a deity is not necessary. Yes, even a godless atheist can still perform divine magic in Eberron.


As you can see, the world building of Forgotten Realms and Eberron contradict each other in regards to how divine magic works. The two are mutually exclusive in regards to their functionality.

That is what I'm trying to tell you, that RAW may not be supported by the established world building of the setting your game takes place in. RAW is designed with an agnostic viewpoint, but does not necessarily apply to the setting.

[Xanatharr]

Originally posted by Dryad:

Originally posted by 👁:

What do you call a Lawful Good angel who is forced to make a choice between law and good and is broken by the dilemma, becoming lawful neutral instead.

Also props if you can name the character I'm trying to think of because I tried to google it.

Cannot think of any specific angel that's Lawful Neutral, but the LN outsiders in PF1e are Aeons and Inevitables.

Axiomites and Inevitables, Aeons are actually true neutral in the game itself. Though I thought they were LN too until someone pointed it out.

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Axiomites and Inevitables, Aeons are actually true neutral in the game itself. Though I thought they were LN too until someone pointed it out.

Axiomites are more like robots, than celestials.

Everything from Axis is more like robots, than celestials. :-(

[Xanatharr]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Um, easily could have been Asmodeus, why are you assuming angels or fallen angels predate Asmodeus, since the angels themselves were the creations of the gods and Asmodeus himself was one of the very first gods, and depending on the stories Hell predates Asmodeus. Also, Asmodeus has absolutely nothing to do with the Abyss, his realm is hell not the abyss, two wildly different places. Plus, as you personally have mentioned and others have mentioned as well, the planes have their own energy, so yeah, an evil angel might overtime become infused with the stuff of the plane itself and end up changing, but its not a result of their alignment change. You argument is flawed and once again, you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claim.

There are several different origin stories of Asmodeus, as befits the Lord of Lies. But the one I'm familiar with is that the first Devils were created by Angels who became corrupted after spending an extensive period of time fighting in the Abyss and shifted towards evil from their experiences there.

Asmodeus realized just how difficult waging war against the Abyss was going to be from a logistical standpoint, so he created the Nine Hells to effectively fuel his war effort by harvesting the souls of sinners and turning them into more devils.

---------------------

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Because you are wrong. You can try to spew incorrect information all you wants to but that doesnt make it any less incorrect. The core rulebooks are the rules for pathfinder in the entirety, yes individual books for specific settings may override them, but that doesnt mean they don't apply unless overridden. For instance, a Fighter in the core rulebook is the same as a fighter in Lost Omens, maybe have some different options in Lost Omens but they still use the base class from the core rulebook, why? Because the core rulebook is the base rules. Saying that the base underlying rules don't apply to anything built off those rules (again unless otherwise specificed) is just plain stupid.

No, we are not wrong. If you want clarification on what I mean when I say the RAW is meant for agnostic settings, I'll use D&D as an example. Since D&D has multiple settings, where as Pathfinder only has 1 that I'm familiar with.


In the Forgotten Realms, divine magic is impossible to wield, unless you have the patron support of a deity helping you out. When somebody casts divine magic, they transform themselves into a conduit through which the power of their deity is able to interact with the mortal plane.


Where as in the Eberron setting, divine magic is merely a separate form of magic that functions differently from that of the arcane. Deities simply teach their followers how to wield this magic, but the patronage of a deity is not necessary. Yes, even a godless atheist can still perform divine magic in Eberron.


As you can see, the world building of Forgotten Realms and Eberron contradict each other in regards to how divine magic works. The two are mutually exclusive in regards to their functionality.

That is what I'm trying to tell you, that RAW may not be supported by the established world building of the setting your game takes place in. RAW is designed with an agnostic viewpoint, but does not necessarily apply to the setting.

Its possible, I dont know that they have ever set in stone what the actual creation myth was, but I would question why angels would become LE devils if they were being influenced by the abyss, which makes it seem like one of the more far fetched stories. Especially since as mentioned, Asmodeus was one of the first gods and and if he wanted servants he wouldnt have needed to wait for angels to fall.
I'm going to put this in all caps so maybe you will actually read and understand. UNLESS OTHERWISE OVERRIDDEN Yes, lore books and campaign or setting specific information can and does override the core rule books, but UNLESS OTHERWISE OVERRIDDEN the core rule book rules apply. In your example the forgotten realms campaign setting SPECIFICALLY states that clerics work differently from the core rulebook and must have a chosen god. I imagine Eberron specifically states something similar, though I never cared about Eberron so I couldnt quote it. But that doesnt mean they just completely ignore the core rulebooks. It means that some specifically mentioned things work differently in Eberron. So, that being said, can you point to some specific information somewhere that specifically states that alignment in lost omens does not work like it does in the core rulebooks?

[Dryad]

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Originally posted by Dryad:

Cannot think of any specific angel that's Lawful Neutral, but the LN outsiders in PF1e are Aeons and Inevitables.

Axiomites and Inevitables, Aeons are actually true neutral in the game itself. Though I thought they were LN too until someone pointed it out.

Right, I'm thinking 2e Aeons, in 1e they're still TN

[Xanatharr]

Originally posted by Dryad:

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Axiomites and Inevitables, Aeons are actually true neutral in the game itself. Though I thought they were LN too until someone pointed it out.

Right, I'm thinking 2e Aeons, in 1e they're still TN

Im guessing mine is mostly just from WOTR, I knew about inevitables and probably from the games making aeons LN I just interposed the two.

[Dryad]

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Originally posted by Dryad:

My argument, to reiterate, is that Campaign Setting books override the Core line books which are generic. The Campaign Setting books, to my knowledge, are lore primarily and any mechanical options that are present in them are in addition to the Core line books unless otherwise stated.

Lore-wise the Campaign Setting books are the books to use when arguing Golarion lore, the Core books are generic for any setting and to not understand that is, to be blunt, to be incorrect regarding the lore. Pathfinder 1e RPG's system is not built on the understanding that it is the end all be all for Golarion, but a generic system for any world someone wants to use, same as the system it is based on: D&D 3.5 edition.

Absolutely correct, if the book in questions is meant as an official update to whatever setting, the revisited book was quite obviously not mention as an official update, it was merely flavor as evidenced by the fact that it doesnt even reference the setting. I also stated REPEATEDLY that they are the rules unless overridden. So yes, if some lore book comes along and says this is how things work in Lost Omens and its different then the core books then yeah, its different. Hence why when an actual quote from the official adventure path said that becoming a lich makes you evil if you were to begin with I admitted I was wrong about becoming a lich requiring that you be evil. So I will once again point out, that unless they have been overrridden then the core rule books still apply, and to argue that they dont (again unless specifically overridden) is foolish.

So, again, lore is in the Campaign Setting line, the Core line is setting agnostic because it's basis, D&D 3.5, was also setting agnostic. Furthermore, Paizo only issued errata for rules mechanics, lore is not mechanics which is why Second Darkness Adventure Path is a stain on how they want Golarion's elves viewed.

For anyone who doesn't know Second Darkness, it's an adventure in which you stop drow from dropping a meteor on the world and in its 4th book you meet the elves of the Winter Council, who, unfortunately, are very xenophobic, bigoted, and overall, not very pleasant to try to work with. Hence them wishing they could retcon that entire portion of the adventure, but they don't issue errata for it, because there's nothing mechanically wrong with any of it. It's lore is problematic, but errata is not issued for lore.

[Dryad]

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Originally posted by Dryad:

Right, I'm thinking 2e Aeons, in 1e they're still TN

Im guessing mine is mostly just from WOTR, I knew about inevitables and probably from the games making aeons LN I just interposed the two.

This is 100% an example of Owlcat using the PF2e updates to alignment for Aeons rather than the 1e alignment

[👁]

Originally posted by Dryad:

Originally posted by 👁:

What do you call a Lawful Good angel who is forced to make a choice between law and good and is broken by the dilemma, becoming lawful neutral instead.

Also props if you can name the character I'm trying to think of because I tried to google it.

Cannot think of any specific angel that's Lawful Neutral, but the LN outsiders in PF1e are Aeons and Inevitables.

I'm trying to think of the one sent to infiltrate the Iron Scepter who had to choose between order and good because of an irreconcilable prophecy, and chose order reasoning that Chaos in all it's forms is a greater threat than evil in one of it's forms.

He didn't fall to evil but he could never return having abandoned his mission so he departed for Golarion and became one of the Aasimar progenitors.

[Xanatharr]

Originally posted by Dryad:

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Absolutely correct, if the book in questions is meant as an official update to whatever setting, the revisited book was quite obviously not mention as an official update, it was merely flavor as evidenced by the fact that it doesnt even reference the setting. I also stated REPEATEDLY that they are the rules unless overridden. So yes, if some lore book comes along and says this is how things work in Lost Omens and its different then the core books then yeah, its different. Hence why when an actual quote from the official adventure path said that becoming a lich makes you evil if you were to begin with I admitted I was wrong about becoming a lich requiring that you be evil. So I will once again point out, that unless they have been overrridden then the core rule books still apply, and to argue that they dont (again unless specifically overridden) is foolish.

So, again, lore is in the Campaign Setting line, the Core line is setting agnostic because it's basis, D&D 3.5, was also setting agnostic. Furthermore, Paizo only issued errata for rules mechanics, lore is not mechanics which is why Second Darkness Adventure Path is a stain on how they want Golarion's elves viewed.

For anyone who doesn't know Second Darkness, it's an adventure in which you stop drow from dropping a meteor on the world and in its 4th book you meet the elves of the Winter Council, who, unfortunately, are very xenophobic, bigoted, and overall, not very pleasant to try to work with. Hence them wishing they could retcon that entire portion of the adventure, but they don't issue errata for it, because there's nothing mechanically wrong with any of it. It's lore is problematic, but errata is not issued for lore.

1. D&D had multiple settings, that all worked usually fairly differently then each other, Pathfinder does not, it has a single official setting. The core rule books apply. Second, they have multiple times issued clarifications in erratas to clarify issues they wanted clarified. Third, I specifically mentioned official lore or campaign setting and the Revisited book was neither, it was generic flavor not many as any sort of offical update. Hence the reason why when someone pointed out the information contained within an official adventure path despite not being actual rules, I admited I was wrong about requiring evil to become a lich. I disagree emphatically that the core rule books are meant to be agnostic, they are general rules but unless otherwise specified they are the rules for the pathfinder campaign setting, as you have mentioned there is only one official campaign setting. But either way I'm confused what point your trying to make? The book you quoted was not meant as an official update, it was non specific flavor, and nobody has yet pointed out anything saying that outsiders cant change their alignments or that if they do they automatically become something other then what they are.

[Dryad]

Originally posted by Xanatharr:

Originally posted by Dryad:

So, again, lore is in the Campaign Setting line, the Core line is setting agnostic because it's basis, D&D 3.5, was also setting agnostic. Furthermore, Paizo only issued errata for rules mechanics, lore is not mechanics which is why Second Darkness Adventure Path is a stain on how they want Golarion's elves viewed.

For anyone who doesn't know Second Darkness, it's an adventure in which you stop drow from dropping a meteor on the world and in its 4th book you meet the elves of the Winter Council, who, unfortunately, are very xenophobic, bigoted, and overall, not very pleasant to try to work with. Hence them wishing they could retcon that entire portion of the adventure, but they don't issue errata for it, because there's nothing mechanically wrong with any of it. It's lore is problematic, but errata is not issued for lore.

1. D&D had multiple settings, that all worked usually fairly differently then each other, Pathfinder does not, it has a single official setting. The core rule books apply. Second, they have multiple times issued clarifications in erratas to clarify issues they wanted clarified. Third, I specifically mentioned official lore or campaign setting and the Revisited book was neither, it was generic flavor not many as any sort of offical update. Hence the reason why when someone pointed out the information contained within an official adventure path despite not being actual rules, I admited I was wrong about requiring evil to become a lich. I disagree emphatically that the core rule books are meant to be agnostic, they are general rules but unless otherwise specified they are the rules for the pathfinder campaign setting, as you have mentioned there is only one official campaign setting. But either way I'm confused what point your trying to make? The book you quoted was not meant as an official update, it was non specific flavor, and nobody has yet pointed out anything saying that outsiders cant change their alignments or that if they do they automatically become something other then what they are.

So, quick search of the PF1e Core Rulebook pdf shows 0 hits for Golarion, Absalom, Aroden, or anything related to Lost Omens other than the 20 core gods. These are all important words for the setting... hmmmm... Seems like it's incorrect to say it has any lore whatsoever. The Core Rulebook is setting agnostic. If you're thinking of the PF2e Core Rulebook, then yes, that has lore in it, but otherwise, you're very wrong about the Core Rulebook and Bestiary having any bearing on people arguing lore. The Campaign Setting line is still more lore than those, you are incorrect on it being non-specific flavor.