| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
mastermustard
Seeker
USA
78 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Aug 2017 : 03:38:23
|
I remember reading about his physical destruction in Ed's Sundering novel, and have been curious about his whereabouts since then.
Completely disappearing from the stage at that point doesn't make any sense to me, considering that he's a wheels-within-wheels genius that would have prepared for the contingency of his body being destroyed, and the fact that he's a lich and should return to his phylactery by default in any case.
Did all of the energy he absorbed turn him into a demigod or primordial and cause him to expire in a different way than a normal lich would?
I don't understand why Ed purged the realms' most talented archmages in 5e. I hope Larloch wasn't supposed to be one of them.
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2017 : 03:48:06
|
| Ed doesn't decide who lives and dies in the Realms. He lost that privilege when he signed on the dotted line with TSR. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
 |
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2017 : 04:17:57
|
| Larloch must be alive, as the SCAG says that he is currently a patron for Warlocks (those who follow the Undying Patron). How he fared the battle against Elminster and why is he bidding his time helping warlocks... well, I guess that's up to you. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Lilianviaten
Senior Scribe
489 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2017 : 05:13:14
|
| I remember Spellstorm indicating that Larloch had been depowered, and the hold he had over his servant liches was broken. I'm not clear on what exactly The Shrinshee did to him, but she magically pimp slapped him back to last week. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2017 : 15:07:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Larloch must be alive, as the SCAG says that he is currently a patron for Warlocks (those who follow the Undying Patron). How he fared the battle against Elminster and why is he bidding his time helping warlocks... well, I guess that's up to you.
Just a note, I wouldn't necessarily say that someone being a patron needs to necessarily be "alive" or even "corporeal" in the normal since. The 3.5e idea of vestiges could work with warlocks to a degree.
That being said, I would not want to see Larloch gone, and I think the SCAG still hints at other things to say he's still around.... although in what form we don't know. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2017 : 15:13:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Just a note, I wouldn't necessarily say that someone being a patron needs to necessarily be "alive" or even "corporeal" in the normal since. The 3.5e idea of vestiges could work with warlocks to a degree.
Well, the whole point of the Undying pact is that your patron basically achieved immortality. You can't die, you can come back from death, ad so on. So I guess that in this case being "alive" is pretty much required to be a patron (although being corporeal is not). Vestiges are a specific warlock pact anyway, or so they were in 4e, called (drum roll) "Vestige pact". |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2017 : 16:13:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Just a note, I wouldn't necessarily say that someone being a patron needs to necessarily be "alive" or even "corporeal" in the normal since. The 3.5e idea of vestiges could work with warlocks to a degree.
Well, the whole point of the Undying pact is that your patron basically achieved immortality. You can't die, you can come back from death, ad so on. So I guess that in this case being "alive" is pretty much required to be a patron (although being corporeal is not). Vestiges are a specific warlock pact anyway, or so they were in 4e, called (drum roll) "Vestige pact".
Yet, being a vestige could be considered undying, just as being undead apparently is a form of undying. As a vestige you are trapped but immortal. You consciousness lives on. To my knowledge, in 5e there is no such thing as a vestige pact officially, and I would not be adverse to saying that those who use the undying pact could make their pact with a specific vestige and never change their patron.
That being said, I agree, there should be separate rules for using vestiges in the way that they were used with binders (i.e. binding multiple, changing patrons daily, etc..). In fact I wrote such up in my Complete Red Book of Spell Strategy for DM's Guild. In that though, I left the exact names and kinds of vestiges deliberately unlisted.
The exact text I used was the below, and the class abilities specifically notate binding more spirits as you go up, until you bind up to four. The exact abilities given by a binding are chosen by the character, and between them and the DM they should start up a list of sorts to help note which spirits are being used (so long as it keeps the game fun).
" The exact spirit(s) used by the character should be chosen between the DM and the player. The idea here is to have the character choosing a spirit whose story seems to meld with the character's own story. Also, you should not limit the character to using one spirit at a time if it makes for a good story. Many of the spirits listed above come from the 3.5 edition Tome of Magic, however where it had certain Vestiges being tied to certain levels, this version of the binder instead “grows” with the spirits that he binds and he is thus able to wrest more power from them over time. Also, the character may have different standard picks of abilities he may use, and its recommended that they pick a different spirit that they want to use for each “set” for roleplaying purposes. Feel free to even let a player design his own spirit's back story."
BTW, I never did it, but I was considering some feats for the Occultist Binder Warlock that would give tem additional options to choose from for their class abilities. Essentially, the binder becomes that class that you have a lot of flexibility with on a daily basis, similar to a bard, but not necessarily a ton of power.... but you don't have to be a bard. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2017 : 16:57:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Just a note, I wouldn't necessarily say that someone being a patron needs to necessarily be "alive" or even "corporeal" in the normal since. The 3.5e idea of vestiges could work with warlocks to a degree.
Well, the whole point of the Undying pact is that your patron basically achieved immortality. You can't die, you can come back from death, ad so on. So I guess that in this case being "alive" is pretty much required to be a patron (although being corporeal is not). Vestiges are a specific warlock pact anyway, or so they were in 4e, called (drum roll) "Vestige pact".
Yet, being a vestige could be considered undying, just as being undead apparently is a form of undying. As a vestige you are trapped but immortal. You consciousness lives on. To my knowledge, in 5e there is no such thing as a vestige pact officially, and I would not be adverse to saying that those who use the undying pact could make their pact with a specific vestige and never change their patron.
That being said, I agree, there should be separate rules for using vestiges in the way that they were used with binders (i.e. binding multiple, changing patrons daily, etc..). In fact I wrote such up in my Complete Red Book of Spell Strategy for DM's Guild. In that though, I left the exact names and kinds of vestiges deliberately unlisted.
The exact text I used was the below, and the class abilities specifically notate binding more spirits as you go up, until you bind up to four. The exact abilities given by a binding are chosen by the character, and between them and the DM they should start up a list of sorts to help note which spirits are being used (so long as it keeps the game fun).
" The exact spirit(s) used by the character should be chosen between the DM and the player. The idea here is to have the character choosing a spirit whose story seems to meld with the character's own story. Also, you should not limit the character to using one spirit at a time if it makes for a good story. Many of the spirits listed above come from the 3.5 edition Tome of Magic, however where it had certain Vestiges being tied to certain levels, this version of the binder instead “grows” with the spirits that he binds and he is thus able to wrest more power from them over time. Also, the character may have different standard picks of abilities he may use, and its recommended that they pick a different spirit that they want to use for each “set” for roleplaying purposes. Feel free to even let a player design his own spirit's back story."
BTW, I never did it, but I was considering some feats for the Occultist Binder Warlock that would give tem additional options to choose from for their class abilities. Essentially, the binder becomes that class that you have a lot of flexibility with on a daily basis, similar to a bard, but not necessarily a ton of power.... but you don't have to be a bard.
Yes, vestiges are not really "undead" as meant in the Undying pact, IMO (and yes, they should have different mechanics that "simulate" how their power is used. 5e doesn't have that, true, but the mechanics for 5e don't include *a lot* of concepts, yet).
Yes, your consciousness lives on, but that is true for basically anyone. After someone dies, their soul lives on (even tho most memories are lost, their consciousness, their "essence" is still there), dead gods do that too. I think the Undying patrons are meant to be entities who haven't just barely survived, but that are now still active. Otherwise, there isn't much of a point in calling them "Undying". Kiaransalee is a very good example as well. She "died" two times and then rose back to "life" (or unlife). The second time, not only she "died", but she was forgotten by many. Yet her name managed to spread again, and she is now active again. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Has there been any news on the fate of Larloch?
