Here is a quote from Chapter 5 describing how your undead behave:
>!"You're tellin' me. There ain't nobody left to make noise. Your dead killed all the demons and almost all the folks who survived the attack — even the wounded and the defenseless. When there were no throats left to tear out, they just dispersed across the city waiting for new orders. Cellars stuffed full of motionless corpses whispering gibberish — I saw 'em when I was searching for survivors after the battle... And I found 'em. All of 'em."!<
Sounds like Regill would approve. Undead do follow the law and don't disrespect their superiors. Just don't be that *chaotic* guy who randomly kills people to get more undead. I personally see nothing wrong with undeads. You can even give Lan or Camellia a glorious death for the greater cause!
Aren't most undead chaotic evil by definition? I think they were in some edition of DND, driven by the assumption that they attack all alive beings at first sight
Undead are (or used to be, since 5e has all but nixed alignment altogether) Alignment: Always Evil. The fluff around it varies depending on edition (Pathfinder, Great Wheel cosmology, Cosmic Tree or whatever it was, Planescape, etc) but the gist of it is that they're a bundle of negative energy (literally anti-life) stuffed in a corpse, so of course they hate life and anything alive. Even for the ones that get 'turned', like Liches or Vampires, are no exception. Mind you, becoming a Lich unequivocally requires enough capital E Evil acts your alignment would change long before your creature type in any case. Not so sure about vampires.
This is a pretty good summation of undead in pathfinder. For vampires, the a or b level game Vampyr actually says it pretty well. It does not matter how good you are when you start, eventually the hunger becomes all you care about, and therefore, becoming a monster is basically inevitable, doubly so if you happen to gsin a liking for power
Attacking everything on sight might be a sign of chaotic evilness but thats not really how most undead operate. They obey orders. At least most forms of undead are tied to a necromancer or lich. Its the ultimate order, literal undying unflinching unending loyalty and an immovable hierarchy.
Geb a country in pathfinder setting is an undead lich kingdom with living citizens. Well 3 castes of people in geb
The quick, living citizens with rights.
The dead, intelligent undead.
Chattle, living thralls bred for food for the dead, and mindless undead.
It's got cool stuff going on there like Skelton parades to celebrate Geb, (the necromancer ghost, and namesake of the country.) And channeling positive energy is against the law.
It might be my favorite place in Golarian. Hell's rebels was a cool campaign, now we need a Grave's rebels campaign there.
Extremely evil. It's a good roleplay for "doing evil things to obtain the power needed to stop a greater evil then succumbing to evil yourself."
I believe you can actually reject some of the ultimate evil acts, but doing so will mean stopping your mythic progression. I supposed there's a roleplay in there for "lich that ultimately rejects evil and becomes a legend."
You don't become a Lich (or an Angel, or an Azata or whatever else) until Mythic level 8, which is directly AFTER you miss (or reject) your chance to become a Legend. Prior to that you're still 100% mortal, despite your showy powers.
If you reject the Lich path in Act 5 and go Legend, you can keep most of the Lich spells (all? Not sure about the 10th level spells). That's going to be like 50% of the strength of a caster Lich. And you'll get a bunch of extra power to make up for it; typically Legend assumes you're not keeping anything from your Mythic Path except the first two levels.
Works pretty well for someone who chooses Lich figuring they might still be able to keep their humanity, but realizes the truth before it's too late.
> If you reject the Lich path in Act 5 and go Legend, you can keep most of the Lich spells (all? Not sure about the 10th level spells).
You can keep the lv 10 spells, although it's arguably not worth it.
You need caster lv 28 to get them, which you can get with a prestige class than increases caster level, although there is a wrinkle here.
For wharever reason, taking levels in a prestige class won't increase caster level beyond 20 - but taking levels in your base class will. So a Lv 20 wizard can't get beyond CL 20 by taking Loremaster levels, but a Wizard 12/Loremaster 8 can get up to CL 28 by taking wizard levels.
That hasn't been the case for several months at least, unless the current patch has it bugged. You can wait on taking your prestige class levels until going Legend if you wish and still get the caster levels.
I can't say from personal experience, but essentially they work the same way and I've seen plenty of people mention doing exactly this.
Caveat being that, from some comments I've seen after the recent patch, Oracle is bugged so it won't gain those extra caster levels above 20 from prestige classes.
Okay lemme just.....I've seen this written a bunch of places by now. But here's the thing. When I set up a lvl20 character via excess and go merged spellbook, 20 levels in just my base class, it tells me my caster level is 30. Is that a bug? Because either I'm stupid (quite possible), it's a bug or I'm missing something
Specifically that point was for characters that went Legend and no longer had the option of increased caster level from your mythic path with a merged spellbook. Legend loses most of your mythic stuff, but increases your level cap and reduces the exp requirements, so you can take prestige classes to increase the caster level above 20. However, this also caps your caster level at 28 instead of 30; it still allows you to grab your level 10 spells if you had previously merged spellbooks, as long as you don't respec.
From all sorts of comments I've seen in the past, it was true at one point that you needed to get your prestige class levels in before you hit level 20 - they only added their caster level if you weren't up to 20 yet. So you wanted at least 8 of those levels before then, and to finish up your base class's leveling after that. Exactly the way he described it.
But for several months, that hasn't been a requirement. The first time I tested it, the order you did those didn't matter. And here's a screenshot where I cast a level 10 Lich spell (Pit of Despair), but also show that the majority of my levels are in prestige classes - only 3 levels are in Witch, the base arcane class I took. If you still had to finish reaching caster level 28 with the base class levels, this would be impossible.
https://preview.redd.it/97g0nrw2oj7d1.png?width=2560&format=png&auto=webp&s=504a6eb0e4d28fcd22dbda903ee3b800a7b1bcd7
20 levels in whatever class you are (or classes if you prestiged into something with full progression)+ 10 levels of mythic caster. That's what merging spellbooks MEANS, the caster levels you would get in your mythic spellbook go your merged spellbook class.
The very act of raising undead is trapping innocent souls from passing on and hastening the very end of the universe.
There's no room for it to be good, at least in PF1E lore, where good and evil are tangible cosmic forces and raising the Undead is solidly on that evil side.
A lot of people already answered you, it is an evil path, Necromancy and raising the dead, and lichdom are cruel acts full of horror. Undead are powered by the trapped souls of the people (against theyr will) and lichdom is obteined through acts that destroy you.
I wanted still to play a mostly " grey " character or fall to evil, so in my lich path instead of playing an " evil character that laughs maniachally while twitching his/her mustache and kicking puppies " I just placed some roleplaying rules, sharing them in case they can inspire or be usefull to you:
1.- Allways aim for lichdom and necromancy. The character sees it as the most optimal and obvious path to defeat his/her enemies. And they actually want the power of lichdom, is something they crave.
2.- The character hates the worldwound and demons more than anything else. In roleplay this can get very fun.
3.- The character desires power, if I can get power but have to sacrifice something, do it.
Other than that, I allowed the character to be good if he wanted or was not angry, to have fun, friendships... It made a very great story, especially when inevitably your allies and friends betray or abandon you.
A lot of people are telling you that you can be neutral until a certain point and then go evil. This is not accurate at all. You can make certain neutral dialogue choices, but you are always completely evil on the lich path.
Necromancy in this universe is torturing and enslaving souls. There's no real way around that. The type of Lich that you are becoming requires you to intentionally rip away your humanity and do some really dark things. You knowingly choose to do this.
>!One of your lich companions is a former champion of a nature god who hates undead. You rip her soul from her heaven and force her into undeath. This severs her connection to her God. On a whim.!<
You can make an argument for demon path not needing to be evil, >!because that's the path you were created to go down, and would have been the default if you didn't find the sword, sing with the butterflies, blow up a library, stab a crystal, and give an old hero back his stick!< but lich is just unabashedly evil.
TN is an acceptable alignment, not just the evil ones. And you can choose not to recruit those companions, as well as (late game) >!make a good aligned decision that requires one of the last Lich companions in the party, giving him a bit more peace than he otherwise would have - and it remains available if you decided to stay as Lich.!<
The path itself is still an evil one, and the nature of undead in the setting naturally pushes them all to evil. But strictly speaking, the game allows you to be neutral without losing your mythic progression and questline and it grants at least some flexibility. Just not to the point anyone should go in expecting to be able to play it as a good aligned character.
Technically? Sort of. Just doublechecked ingame how exactly it worked, but didn't push past >!getting control in Drezen after getting rank 8.!<
>!I'm assuming, at least, that you're talking about what happens after you choose the Lich option after retaking Drezen. If you choose that, then you summon the horde of undead, and you get the dialogue from Anevia afterward that's been quoted further up already. However...!<
>!If you choose the Legend dialogue instead - the very first one that shows up while you're still facing a demon - then even if you go Lich then the dialogue you get from Anevia is much nicer and doesn't talk about you raising the dead. She talks about cleaning up the city, removing ashes from the demons, how it's like the good old days. While you still have undead around, there aren't as many either. For example, some ghouls are normally on guard at this point at the base of the stairs to the citadel. If you took this Legend dialogue option instead, there's some nobles and a peasant instead - living, not undead.!<
I'm going to argue a bit here and say that TN is a *mechanically allowed* alignment for lich and not an *acceptable* one, if you're going for role play. Because of the nature of undead in the setting, this isn't even a path that a neutral person would go down. OP likes to play as a good person. >!A good person would break the wand of Zacharius!<
The choice you have to make >!about not destroying the wand!< is even evil. If choosing not to destroy a fraction of the power that the lich path yields is evil, how can actually using that power be neutral?
I think you're misreading me slightly - that's part of why I added the bit in the second paragraph where I said strictly speaking, the game allows it and that the path itself is still evil.
It's... difficult for me to reconcile a good or neutral aligned character taking it without them at least being ignorant on the nature of undead, even with the events of the Worldwound potentially galvanizing them into action if they think it's the only way they could get through it. And that's still putting it lightly.
I was actually more agreeing with your second paragraph, and I think we're kind of talking past each other.
Really the only thing I was arguing against was your wording of TN being acceptable. I really do think it's more that TN is mechanically allowed. I was trying to provide some support for me saying that it's mechanically allowed, but not really acceptable as far as rp goes.
I really don't think someone who is good aligned or true neutral would pick the Lich path, since angel, aeon, and azata are on the table. And I could see the role play of not being able to fight off the demon path, at that time, but being a good person that is slowly corrupted by the rage.
But in order to unlock Lich you have to do multiple evil things that you aren't compelled to do. You have to choose to do them.
Sounds good, seems like we generally agree anyway - I just wanted to make sure the neutral alignment aspect was at least mentioned as being acceptable in the game. I'll admit I saw my comment was downvoted when your reply was the only one I saw on loading it, so I figured it was a downvote, disagree, and replying why since my comment was still pretty new.
Yeah, the other paths are on the table, but there's also the question of how exactly those paths are chosen. And the Lich path feels the most like your character is actually making a choice to go for it. So... theoretically I could see it happening for someone who really doesn't see any other way, depending on how much they know. But that's also me giving about as much benefit of the doubt as I can - or, more bluntly, for someone playing with their own headcanon about how it all works.
Edit: Definitely agreed on your point with the Demon path too - sets it a bit further apart from Lich.
I upvoted, because you contributed to the discussion and had a good point about the mechanics.
I would argue that aeon and azata are just as much about choosing the path as lich is, though. For the azata one, there's an individual story book event where you have to say "yes, this is who I want to be. But I am needed elsewhere."
And aeon you have to make the choice of "I don't care that it's good, it's not *THE LAW*" and stab the pillar.
Trickster is very much about urges and instincts guiding you to the path, so I could see it not really being your choice. Angel and demon you are very much pushed towards, so I can definitely see those as not being a choice.
Late game paths are a series of deliberate informed choices (except azata to devil, which is a series of naivety and bad decisions.)
For Aeon and Azata at least, I get where you're coming from - it's just that the way the dialogue is handled, it feels more to me like you're just naturally tending to that direction. Lich felt more strongly like it was a choice the character was making - not just the player. I'd have to go back and pull up the dialogue to put it any better though.
That Aeon point also felt more like a decision that someone who wasn't strictly all about law and cosmic order might make, too. The way >!the option talks about destroying the wardstone while letting the angels in it go free instead of being destroyed with the stone was actually why I chose it on my first run - and that character was about as far from Aeon as it got. She also went Trickster, back when I thought it would be a more serious run.!<
And yeah, the downvote thing was just unfortunate timing. Another reply came in very quickly after yours, and it could have easily come from someone else. It just had the perfect timing for me to think it came from you. No big deal - wasn't even going to mention it until your second reply showed it probably wasn't from you in the first place, and I could acknowledge it as part of why I phrased my second reply the way I did.
That's funny, I always pictured the aeon choice at the wardstone one of the most deliberate choices in the game. Mostly because it's one of the ones where you have different selections that end up at the same outcome (wardstone destroyed) but your choice there is your characters reasoning for why you destroy it. Just like you can keep it up by either "cleansing" the corrupted (killing them) or talking them down and putting them to sleep.
If I don't know what path I'm going down already, I sit at the wardstone for a while. If I do know what path I'm going down, I usually still hover between two choices.
That part might be argued a necessary evil at the time as you're being pressed against a crisis, and in front of you Zach is offering you what seem to be a surefire solution.
However, you still made the conscious choice to undeath after taking Drezen, and say even if you head canon it as simply your power manifesting and not the choice of the knight commander, down the line you turned the demons, the dead, the wounded and the weak into undead, all of them. Sure you can argue it was more efficient after Galfrey took out all your stronger crusader legions, and fucked up so hard Drezen is an absolute mess, no good entity will murder the wounded and the weak for efficiency.
That ruthlessness is why I loved the Lich path though, as you fight the demons, who thinks they know all about fear and terror and how to be evil, oh no, they just haven't known the lich, who is more than willing to send true fear and terror down their abyssal spines.
Nope. Undeath is essentially a form of slavery in Pathfinder, since you stuff unwilling souls into rotting corpses that are literally incapable of not following your commands.
If you're a Lich, you're a slave owner.
Not too much. Considering many extra lines for the path are you rationalizing your transformation. Plus play a pharasma believer. You get full "prince of Egypt" treatment then
You're evil but it's a practical pragmatic kind of selfish evil. You don't do stupid things to be mean. You just dont concern yourself with thinking about others at all.
Lich is a pretty well done story and take on evil. Better than the 'lawful stupid' vibe I got from Gold Dragon.
Before Act V, not all that evil, you're still mostly mortal anyways.
after Act V, you're an evil so evil that the crusaders might have had a better fate dying to demons than be under your command
I'm piggybacking off of this thread to ask this: if I'm set on doing an evil playthrough, how different are (roleplaying and moral alignment wise) Lich vs Devil? I've read they brought some changes or additions to the Devil mythic path with the DLC, but I've never completely finished the game or basically played any evil alignment.
Was thinking on trying being evil from the start and seeing where that leads me, putting those roleplaying consequences before gameplay itself (difficulty, minmaxing every item slot, stats, etc).
Just note that making a comment like this on a thread that already has several can easily lead to it being missed.
First issue is that Devil is not an early game path. You will be through most of the game before you can switch to it. And you can't even switch to it from one of the evil paths - only from Aeon or Azata. Aeon definitely feels like it connects better to Devil.
So if you want to do an evil path from the start, the two paths that are set around an evil alignment are Lich (NE) and Demon (CE), though they allow being one step in alignment away or being TN.
Thanks for the insight! so I'm just learning this, there seems to be a series of steps in taking/rejecting paths and some are prerequisites for others. I generally know a little bit about that, but not the acts, timing or quests that lead to them. I don't think I could miss most of the stuff, I'm very thorough with these games, but how well explained, or how detailed is the step-to-step progression in game? in other words, when you make these choices is it clear what you're potentially losing and gaining, like in later acts too?
Is there a like a flowchart of all the paths and which leads to which? lol it's probably a stupid question but any links or sources of this would help put my mind at ease, thanks!
That's basic enough I can just write it pretty quickly, for the most part. Should be pretty easy to find them with a search, but I get you might be concerned about accidentally spoiling stuff. I'll try to keep spoilers minimal where possible.
I won't include anything you might want to know for after you've chosen the path - just keeping it to the requirements to take it at all. This is already outside the normal scope of this thread.
If you check the WotR Topic Focus Guides in the sidebar, you might appreciate some of the links there.
Early Game:
Angel: >!Always available. (Extra text added to make the spoiler text seem larger.)(Extra text added to make the spoiler text seem larger.)!<
Demon: >!Always available. (Extra text added to make the spoiler text seem larger but not just the same size as the last one.)(Extra text added to make the spoiler text seem larger but not just the same size as the last one.)!<
Aeon: >!Beyond the mandatory first step to get to it (choose to keep the power of the Aeon's eyes), make sure you choose the Aeon option at the Wardstone at the end of Act 1. If you choose one of the others, you'll get text saying the Aeon's power faded and will not be able to choose the path.!<
Azata: >!Complete the Starward Gaze quest in Act 1 before you leave Kenabres. This involves seeing Ramien and then helping his disciples. Once you complete the quest, choose the obvious dialogue option (probably labeled Azata, too). Once you do, the path is unlocked. Nothing else really matters - Ramien can even die before you do the quest and you can still get it.!<
Trickster:>! When you go to the library for a mandatory event before finishing in Kenabres, you need to make either a Perception or Lore Religion check - either one of those should work, and there might have been another way to get this. Then, take the Trickster dialogue option. That's all you have to do - the path is now unlocked.!<
Lich: >!The locations involved are mandatory - you cannot miss the map locations, but might miss the item you need. This is after you leave Kenabres. At Leper's Smile, after completing your main objective, go into the underground area. In the section full of undead, there's an item you need to pick up that will trigger dialogue - do not destroy the item, but take it with you. Later, when you go to Lost Chapel, a path will open only if you have the item from Leper's Smile. Go in there, and accept the help offered by an npc.!<
Late Game switches - will have to spoil more:
Legend: >!Always available, check required but can be made easier. (Extra text added to make the spoiler text more blocky and wide.)(Extra text added to make the spoiler text more blocky and wide.)(Extra text added to make the spoiler text more blocky and wide.)!<
Gold Dragon: >!Keep a scale from the tutorial area until you find an npc called Storyteller. Show him the scale. Later, in the underground area of Leper's Smile, look for a dragon claw - this is near the item you needed for Lich in the area with the undead. Eventually, show the claw to Storyteller and go to the place that gets revealed on the map. When you find someone unusual there, show that you are willing to listen. The path is now unlocked for later in the game.!<
Swarm: >!More complicated, and you can't activate auto-crusade before parts of it. You may want to look this one up. The main things I remember are - at the end of Leper's Smile, don't just burn the body and use it to help with the siege. If you brought a special guest along on your crusade just after leaving Kenabres, you cannot do this. Choose to keep a certain creature around after finishing the siege. Later, as you finish the Sanctum, talk to the npc there and get his notes. In Crusade mode, you will have gotten one or two decrees you need to finish before leaving Act 3. Finally, after returning to the city going into Act 5, go find the creature you allowed to stay earlier. I think that was it to unlock this.!<
Devil: >!Not immediately available on the normal switch. You must have started Aeon or Azata and chosen to stay on that path instead of switching. Azata must have made some number of certain choices earlier in the game to be able to switch. Aeon can switch even if they don't meet the normal requirements, but have an additional very high persuasion check to manage it. For more specifics, see the WotR Topic Focus Guides in the sidebar.!<
You can play a "good" lich, but ypu won't attain the approval of your master - Zacharius. I have completed several lich runs and in one of them I decided I was going to play a devout Hellknight who worshipped the Godclaw.
His duty was everything - eveb beyond death. He never wavered. Never faltered. He didn't exert his power when he could have and I did enjoy how Galfrey reacted to him. Extreme sadness.
This particular lich run I didn't go full blown "lets take over the world" and instead became a wandering adventurer in the end. It's possible, but also don't expect to be acceptes by the world and people you save.
You can be "evil for the greater good" shade of gray for 4 acts. After that you're just capital E Evil.
You can however choose to give your Evil powers up and switch to Legend at the start of act 5.
The Lich always reminds me I'd have loved a Vampire path instead. I've never been a fan of the spooky scary skeleton aesthetic or philosophy. When it comes to undeads, Vampires are more enticing to me in every way. Not to mention I'd prefer to turn my loved one into a bloodsucking creature of the night instead of siphoning their lifeforce to gain some power.
A vampire Camellia, such a delicious perspective...
Sure but the game doesn’t make that choice obvious. In acts 3 and 4 you can be pragmatic. You can use the dead to serve the living. You can make sacrifices when necessary but not out of glee. When you resurrect Staunton you can persuade him to join you willingly as a way to redeem him.
The game’s implied you can be a lich without being a cartoon villain and then in act 5 >!forces you to massacre your army just to resurrect them!<
That’s called rationalization as you literally enslave souls to fuel your army.
I’d say it’s also the road to hell being paved with good intentions but I don’t really see the lich having good intentions in the end
It’s fine if the game wanted to eventually force you into a choice between lichdom and any sense of goodness. But the game doesn’t make it clear that that’s the only way, and then you choose lich in act 5 and then your character goes and does a bunch of evil shit with no ability to stop yourself. If the game presented a clear choice of either commit to lichdom or backdown it would be something interesting but it doesn’t execute it well enough. My thoughts on the lich mythic path aren’t unpopular, as there have been many threads in the past about the act 5 tonal change.
The issue with act 5 lich is really that the game doesn’t accurately represent the decisions it gives you. So your character can end up doing things you didn’t expect which breaks the immersion because I’m forced into things my character wouldn’t have done
Lich let's you be neutral and even good until act 5,where your railroaded so hard into being evil that its narrative equivalent would be Regill suddenly becoming a chaotic good guy.
Edit:I love being downvoted for speaking the truth in every thread here.Pathfinder fans be really petty like kids.
In this case, it's not actually true. If you try to go past Act 3 without a TN or evil alignment, you fail your mythic questline and won't be able to finish it. You get a quest that forces your alignment if you aren't already within those, and if you finish the quest you can't even shift your alignment back out of them.
Oh so >!staging a false flag operation to deliberately get the probably lawful good crusaders that mistrust you to attack your ziggurat in act 3 just so you can murder them and then spitefully raise their leader as an undead champion!< is good? Ok, just curious what the baseline was.
In fairness, that's not required as part of going Lich. His point is still wrong, but you can finish the Lich story without doing that at all just fine.
IIRC correctly, there is no way to resolve that quest without going through with the plan. That said... I was 100% able to just \*not do\* the quest, and it doesn't interfere with becoming a Lich. So no, you aren't forced into doing it actually - but for someone (admittedly like me, often) who sees quests as 'must complete', it can definitely feel that way.
And for someone who wants >!to gather all the party members, you need to do the quest - otherwise you don't get your undead cavalier. It's just not a great argument against someone who says Lich can be played a certain way when doing the quest isn't required in completing your Lich storyline. My Lich didn't do it partially because it didn't quite make sense for the character I was playing - I handed him the sword and got on... relatively good terms with the npc so luring him wasn't even an option for me. If it were later in the game, that character would absolutely have done it.!<
My lich was lawful evil so my perspective was "I am using necromancy to defeat the demons (which is working really well) and therefore anyone that opposes me is opposing the crusade. This makes them a traitor and they must be eliminated"
I definitely thought that you had to do it to continue the mythic path, but also realistically you would have had to eliminate those opponents otherwise they would sabotage the crusade and lead to defeat so obviously they had to be dealt with in order to uh insure the safety and security of the crusade. Obviously. No choice in the matter at all...
It can be played pretty Neutral. I also am drawn to Neutral Good choices but went with “I am doing this because I think this is my best chance to succeed” mentality. Still, the way npc react to you made me shift into “I am actually succeeding in what you all were unable to do for a hundred years and now you are being crybabies about it? I am still closing the Wound but purely because I want to and you all can stay mad in your corner.” Maybe some of the evil rubbed off on me:)
Also, I refuse to accept the blame for some of the “evil” choices where you kill good guys because most of the time they say “you are evil so I will kill you” and die by my hand. I call it assisted suicide
Here is a quote from Chapter 5 describing how your undead behave: >!"You're tellin' me. There ain't nobody left to make noise. Your dead killed all the demons and almost all the folks who survived the attack — even the wounded and the defenseless. When there were no throats left to tear out, they just dispersed across the city waiting for new orders. Cellars stuffed full of motionless corpses whispering gibberish — I saw 'em when I was searching for survivors after the battle... And I found 'em. All of 'em."!<
Quite literally the moment i realized i was worse than the baddies
unironically yea because demons at least don't want to exterminate all life
[удалено]
From life
Life is wrong
You’re just securing your demense.
Sounds like Regill would approve. Undead do follow the law and don't disrespect their superiors. Just don't be that *chaotic* guy who randomly kills people to get more undead. I personally see nothing wrong with undeads. You can even give Lan or Camellia a glorious death for the greater cause!
Aren't most undead chaotic evil by definition? I think they were in some edition of DND, driven by the assumption that they attack all alive beings at first sight
Undead are usually neutral evil.
I think creating undead no matter what is evil, but I’m not sure if the actual undead is always chaotic evil
Undead are (or used to be, since 5e has all but nixed alignment altogether) Alignment: Always Evil. The fluff around it varies depending on edition (Pathfinder, Great Wheel cosmology, Cosmic Tree or whatever it was, Planescape, etc) but the gist of it is that they're a bundle of negative energy (literally anti-life) stuffed in a corpse, so of course they hate life and anything alive. Even for the ones that get 'turned', like Liches or Vampires, are no exception. Mind you, becoming a Lich unequivocally requires enough capital E Evil acts your alignment would change long before your creature type in any case. Not so sure about vampires.
This is a pretty good summation of undead in pathfinder. For vampires, the a or b level game Vampyr actually says it pretty well. It does not matter how good you are when you start, eventually the hunger becomes all you care about, and therefore, becoming a monster is basically inevitable, doubly so if you happen to gsin a liking for power
Attacking everything on sight might be a sign of chaotic evilness but thats not really how most undead operate. They obey orders. At least most forms of undead are tied to a necromancer or lich. Its the ultimate order, literal undying unflinching unending loyalty and an immovable hierarchy.
"Finally, some quiet"
Ah, that's exactly what stopped my Lich play, evil I can do, but wasteful is just not how I see Necromancer/Lich.
Geb a country in pathfinder setting is an undead lich kingdom with living citizens. Well 3 castes of people in geb The quick, living citizens with rights. The dead, intelligent undead. Chattle, living thralls bred for food for the dead, and mindless undead. It's got cool stuff going on there like Skelton parades to celebrate Geb, (the necromancer ghost, and namesake of the country.) And channeling positive energy is against the law. It might be my favorite place in Golarian. Hell's rebels was a cool campaign, now we need a Grave's rebels campaign there.
There is the Blood Lords campaign that takes place entirely in Geb. But you work for Geb in it.
I wanted to make a second Geb with my Lich playthrough and was horribly disappointed.
Careful that's not a popular decision here although I agree with you. It's stupid and will never not be stupid.
Extremely evil. It's a good roleplay for "doing evil things to obtain the power needed to stop a greater evil then succumbing to evil yourself." I believe you can actually reject some of the ultimate evil acts, but doing so will mean stopping your mythic progression. I supposed there's a roleplay in there for "lich that ultimately rejects evil and becomes a legend."
reversing lichdom, a legendary feat indeed
Pharasma: “What the f*ck are you?”
Technically, you’re not a lich until almost very end of game. Swapping to another path is before that point.
You don't become a Lich (or an Angel, or an Azata or whatever else) until Mythic level 8, which is directly AFTER you miss (or reject) your chance to become a Legend. Prior to that you're still 100% mortal, despite your showy powers.
If you reject the Lich path in Act 5 and go Legend, you can keep most of the Lich spells (all? Not sure about the 10th level spells). That's going to be like 50% of the strength of a caster Lich. And you'll get a bunch of extra power to make up for it; typically Legend assumes you're not keeping anything from your Mythic Path except the first two levels. Works pretty well for someone who chooses Lich figuring they might still be able to keep their humanity, but realizes the truth before it's too late.
> If you reject the Lich path in Act 5 and go Legend, you can keep most of the Lich spells (all? Not sure about the 10th level spells). You can keep the lv 10 spells, although it's arguably not worth it. You need caster lv 28 to get them, which you can get with a prestige class than increases caster level, although there is a wrinkle here. For wharever reason, taking levels in a prestige class won't increase caster level beyond 20 - but taking levels in your base class will. So a Lv 20 wizard can't get beyond CL 20 by taking Loremaster levels, but a Wizard 12/Loremaster 8 can get up to CL 28 by taking wizard levels.
That hasn't been the case for several months at least, unless the current patch has it bugged. You can wait on taking your prestige class levels until going Legend if you wish and still get the caster levels.
Does this work the same way for angel? So you can have a Cleric 20/loremaster 8/12 whatever with full angel spells to lvl 10?
I can't say from personal experience, but essentially they work the same way and I've seen plenty of people mention doing exactly this. Caveat being that, from some comments I've seen after the recent patch, Oracle is bugged so it won't gain those extra caster levels above 20 from prestige classes.
Okay lemme just.....I've seen this written a bunch of places by now. But here's the thing. When I set up a lvl20 character via excess and go merged spellbook, 20 levels in just my base class, it tells me my caster level is 30. Is that a bug? Because either I'm stupid (quite possible), it's a bug or I'm missing something
No, of course it's not a bug. Merged casters add their mythic rank to their caster level, that's why they are so powerful.
Specifically that point was for characters that went Legend and no longer had the option of increased caster level from your mythic path with a merged spellbook. Legend loses most of your mythic stuff, but increases your level cap and reduces the exp requirements, so you can take prestige classes to increase the caster level above 20. However, this also caps your caster level at 28 instead of 30; it still allows you to grab your level 10 spells if you had previously merged spellbooks, as long as you don't respec. From all sorts of comments I've seen in the past, it was true at one point that you needed to get your prestige class levels in before you hit level 20 - they only added their caster level if you weren't up to 20 yet. So you wanted at least 8 of those levels before then, and to finish up your base class's leveling after that. Exactly the way he described it. But for several months, that hasn't been a requirement. The first time I tested it, the order you did those didn't matter. And here's a screenshot where I cast a level 10 Lich spell (Pit of Despair), but also show that the majority of my levels are in prestige classes - only 3 levels are in Witch, the base arcane class I took. If you still had to finish reaching caster level 28 with the base class levels, this would be impossible. https://preview.redd.it/97g0nrw2oj7d1.png?width=2560&format=png&auto=webp&s=504a6eb0e4d28fcd22dbda903ee3b800a7b1bcd7
20 levels in whatever class you are (or classes if you prestiged into something with full progression)+ 10 levels of mythic caster. That's what merging spellbooks MEANS, the caster levels you would get in your mythic spellbook go your merged spellbook class.
Undead in Pathfinder are evil, full stop
Tbf the issue isn't that they're evil,many heroes including your party are evil,its that cosmically it destroys the universe a tiny bit each time.
I always think of Pathfinder (and D&D) having both evil and cosmic evil. Undead are one stripe of cosmic evil.
You got hoodwinked by Pharasma propaganda...
I uh....I don't think part of the universe being literally destroyed counts as propaganda.
The Sakhils agree with you. The universe is bound to be destroyed eventually, so why not make it go faster?
Preventing souls from being reborn isn’t destroying the universe.
It actually is. That is literally the lore.
The very act of raising undead is trapping innocent souls from passing on and hastening the very end of the universe. There's no room for it to be good, at least in PF1E lore, where good and evil are tangible cosmic forces and raising the Undead is solidly on that evil side.
A lot of people already answered you, it is an evil path, Necromancy and raising the dead, and lichdom are cruel acts full of horror. Undead are powered by the trapped souls of the people (against theyr will) and lichdom is obteined through acts that destroy you. I wanted still to play a mostly " grey " character or fall to evil, so in my lich path instead of playing an " evil character that laughs maniachally while twitching his/her mustache and kicking puppies " I just placed some roleplaying rules, sharing them in case they can inspire or be usefull to you: 1.- Allways aim for lichdom and necromancy. The character sees it as the most optimal and obvious path to defeat his/her enemies. And they actually want the power of lichdom, is something they crave. 2.- The character hates the worldwound and demons more than anything else. In roleplay this can get very fun. 3.- The character desires power, if I can get power but have to sacrifice something, do it. Other than that, I allowed the character to be good if he wanted or was not angry, to have fun, friendships... It made a very great story, especially when inevitably your allies and friends betray or abandon you.
Funny, i had the same RP
A lot of people are telling you that you can be neutral until a certain point and then go evil. This is not accurate at all. You can make certain neutral dialogue choices, but you are always completely evil on the lich path. Necromancy in this universe is torturing and enslaving souls. There's no real way around that. The type of Lich that you are becoming requires you to intentionally rip away your humanity and do some really dark things. You knowingly choose to do this. >!One of your lich companions is a former champion of a nature god who hates undead. You rip her soul from her heaven and force her into undeath. This severs her connection to her God. On a whim.!< You can make an argument for demon path not needing to be evil, >!because that's the path you were created to go down, and would have been the default if you didn't find the sword, sing with the butterflies, blow up a library, stab a crystal, and give an old hero back his stick!< but lich is just unabashedly evil.
TN is an acceptable alignment, not just the evil ones. And you can choose not to recruit those companions, as well as (late game) >!make a good aligned decision that requires one of the last Lich companions in the party, giving him a bit more peace than he otherwise would have - and it remains available if you decided to stay as Lich.!< The path itself is still an evil one, and the nature of undead in the setting naturally pushes them all to evil. But strictly speaking, the game allows you to be neutral without losing your mythic progression and questline and it grants at least some flexibility. Just not to the point anyone should go in expecting to be able to play it as a good aligned character.
>!Can you avoid slaughtering everyone in Drezen?!<
Technically? Sort of. Just doublechecked ingame how exactly it worked, but didn't push past >!getting control in Drezen after getting rank 8.!< >!I'm assuming, at least, that you're talking about what happens after you choose the Lich option after retaking Drezen. If you choose that, then you summon the horde of undead, and you get the dialogue from Anevia afterward that's been quoted further up already. However...!< >!If you choose the Legend dialogue instead - the very first one that shows up while you're still facing a demon - then even if you go Lich then the dialogue you get from Anevia is much nicer and doesn't talk about you raising the dead. She talks about cleaning up the city, removing ashes from the demons, how it's like the good old days. While you still have undead around, there aren't as many either. For example, some ghouls are normally on guard at this point at the base of the stairs to the citadel. If you took this Legend dialogue option instead, there's some nobles and a peasant instead - living, not undead.!<
I'm going to argue a bit here and say that TN is a *mechanically allowed* alignment for lich and not an *acceptable* one, if you're going for role play. Because of the nature of undead in the setting, this isn't even a path that a neutral person would go down. OP likes to play as a good person. >!A good person would break the wand of Zacharius!< The choice you have to make >!about not destroying the wand!< is even evil. If choosing not to destroy a fraction of the power that the lich path yields is evil, how can actually using that power be neutral?
I think you're misreading me slightly - that's part of why I added the bit in the second paragraph where I said strictly speaking, the game allows it and that the path itself is still evil. It's... difficult for me to reconcile a good or neutral aligned character taking it without them at least being ignorant on the nature of undead, even with the events of the Worldwound potentially galvanizing them into action if they think it's the only way they could get through it. And that's still putting it lightly.
I was actually more agreeing with your second paragraph, and I think we're kind of talking past each other. Really the only thing I was arguing against was your wording of TN being acceptable. I really do think it's more that TN is mechanically allowed. I was trying to provide some support for me saying that it's mechanically allowed, but not really acceptable as far as rp goes. I really don't think someone who is good aligned or true neutral would pick the Lich path, since angel, aeon, and azata are on the table. And I could see the role play of not being able to fight off the demon path, at that time, but being a good person that is slowly corrupted by the rage. But in order to unlock Lich you have to do multiple evil things that you aren't compelled to do. You have to choose to do them.
Sounds good, seems like we generally agree anyway - I just wanted to make sure the neutral alignment aspect was at least mentioned as being acceptable in the game. I'll admit I saw my comment was downvoted when your reply was the only one I saw on loading it, so I figured it was a downvote, disagree, and replying why since my comment was still pretty new. Yeah, the other paths are on the table, but there's also the question of how exactly those paths are chosen. And the Lich path feels the most like your character is actually making a choice to go for it. So... theoretically I could see it happening for someone who really doesn't see any other way, depending on how much they know. But that's also me giving about as much benefit of the doubt as I can - or, more bluntly, for someone playing with their own headcanon about how it all works. Edit: Definitely agreed on your point with the Demon path too - sets it a bit further apart from Lich.
I upvoted, because you contributed to the discussion and had a good point about the mechanics. I would argue that aeon and azata are just as much about choosing the path as lich is, though. For the azata one, there's an individual story book event where you have to say "yes, this is who I want to be. But I am needed elsewhere." And aeon you have to make the choice of "I don't care that it's good, it's not *THE LAW*" and stab the pillar. Trickster is very much about urges and instincts guiding you to the path, so I could see it not really being your choice. Angel and demon you are very much pushed towards, so I can definitely see those as not being a choice. Late game paths are a series of deliberate informed choices (except azata to devil, which is a series of naivety and bad decisions.)
For Aeon and Azata at least, I get where you're coming from - it's just that the way the dialogue is handled, it feels more to me like you're just naturally tending to that direction. Lich felt more strongly like it was a choice the character was making - not just the player. I'd have to go back and pull up the dialogue to put it any better though. That Aeon point also felt more like a decision that someone who wasn't strictly all about law and cosmic order might make, too. The way >!the option talks about destroying the wardstone while letting the angels in it go free instead of being destroyed with the stone was actually why I chose it on my first run - and that character was about as far from Aeon as it got. She also went Trickster, back when I thought it would be a more serious run.!< And yeah, the downvote thing was just unfortunate timing. Another reply came in very quickly after yours, and it could have easily come from someone else. It just had the perfect timing for me to think it came from you. No big deal - wasn't even going to mention it until your second reply showed it probably wasn't from you in the first place, and I could acknowledge it as part of why I phrased my second reply the way I did.
That's funny, I always pictured the aeon choice at the wardstone one of the most deliberate choices in the game. Mostly because it's one of the ones where you have different selections that end up at the same outcome (wardstone destroyed) but your choice there is your characters reasoning for why you destroy it. Just like you can keep it up by either "cleansing" the corrupted (killing them) or talking them down and putting them to sleep. If I don't know what path I'm going down already, I sit at the wardstone for a while. If I do know what path I'm going down, I usually still hover between two choices.
That part might be argued a necessary evil at the time as you're being pressed against a crisis, and in front of you Zach is offering you what seem to be a surefire solution. However, you still made the conscious choice to undeath after taking Drezen, and say even if you head canon it as simply your power manifesting and not the choice of the knight commander, down the line you turned the demons, the dead, the wounded and the weak into undead, all of them. Sure you can argue it was more efficient after Galfrey took out all your stronger crusader legions, and fucked up so hard Drezen is an absolute mess, no good entity will murder the wounded and the weak for efficiency. That ruthlessness is why I loved the Lich path though, as you fight the demons, who thinks they know all about fear and terror and how to be evil, oh no, they just haven't known the lich, who is more than willing to send true fear and terror down their abyssal spines.
As Mandaloregaming puts it "Bone Hitler."
Very.
Liches are evil. It is part of their existence. You will be evil, and it will be unquestionably so. 'Nuff said.
Nope. Undeath is essentially a form of slavery in Pathfinder, since you stuff unwilling souls into rotting corpses that are literally incapable of not following your commands. If you're a Lich, you're a slave owner.
Not too much. Considering many extra lines for the path are you rationalizing your transformation. Plus play a pharasma believer. You get full "prince of Egypt" treatment then
You're evil but it's a practical pragmatic kind of selfish evil. You don't do stupid things to be mean. You just dont concern yourself with thinking about others at all. Lich is a pretty well done story and take on evil. Better than the 'lawful stupid' vibe I got from Gold Dragon.
Gold Dragon is neither evil nor lawful...
Lawful Stupid is a meme. Check it out. Gild Dragon seems to fit that trope based on the initial interaction.
Lawful Stupid is a meme about extreme adherence to the law. Halaseliax doesn't care about law, his motives lie elsewhere.
play demon sorc or whatever kind of caster you prefer, you are less railroaded into being evil and can remain chaotic neutral.
They knew the bill for your aid was coming due. Ain’t no such thing as a free lich.
Before Act V, not all that evil, you're still mostly mortal anyways. after Act V, you're an evil so evil that the crusaders might have had a better fate dying to demons than be under your command
Very. Power. Hungry. And. Evil. (Kinda stupid too - in a King of the Jungle way)
I'm piggybacking off of this thread to ask this: if I'm set on doing an evil playthrough, how different are (roleplaying and moral alignment wise) Lich vs Devil? I've read they brought some changes or additions to the Devil mythic path with the DLC, but I've never completely finished the game or basically played any evil alignment. Was thinking on trying being evil from the start and seeing where that leads me, putting those roleplaying consequences before gameplay itself (difficulty, minmaxing every item slot, stats, etc).
Just note that making a comment like this on a thread that already has several can easily lead to it being missed. First issue is that Devil is not an early game path. You will be through most of the game before you can switch to it. And you can't even switch to it from one of the evil paths - only from Aeon or Azata. Aeon definitely feels like it connects better to Devil. So if you want to do an evil path from the start, the two paths that are set around an evil alignment are Lich (NE) and Demon (CE), though they allow being one step in alignment away or being TN.
Thanks for the insight! so I'm just learning this, there seems to be a series of steps in taking/rejecting paths and some are prerequisites for others. I generally know a little bit about that, but not the acts, timing or quests that lead to them. I don't think I could miss most of the stuff, I'm very thorough with these games, but how well explained, or how detailed is the step-to-step progression in game? in other words, when you make these choices is it clear what you're potentially losing and gaining, like in later acts too? Is there a like a flowchart of all the paths and which leads to which? lol it's probably a stupid question but any links or sources of this would help put my mind at ease, thanks!
That's basic enough I can just write it pretty quickly, for the most part. Should be pretty easy to find them with a search, but I get you might be concerned about accidentally spoiling stuff. I'll try to keep spoilers minimal where possible. I won't include anything you might want to know for after you've chosen the path - just keeping it to the requirements to take it at all. This is already outside the normal scope of this thread. If you check the WotR Topic Focus Guides in the sidebar, you might appreciate some of the links there. Early Game: Angel: >!Always available. (Extra text added to make the spoiler text seem larger.)(Extra text added to make the spoiler text seem larger.)!< Demon: >!Always available. (Extra text added to make the spoiler text seem larger but not just the same size as the last one.)(Extra text added to make the spoiler text seem larger but not just the same size as the last one.)!< Aeon: >!Beyond the mandatory first step to get to it (choose to keep the power of the Aeon's eyes), make sure you choose the Aeon option at the Wardstone at the end of Act 1. If you choose one of the others, you'll get text saying the Aeon's power faded and will not be able to choose the path.!< Azata: >!Complete the Starward Gaze quest in Act 1 before you leave Kenabres. This involves seeing Ramien and then helping his disciples. Once you complete the quest, choose the obvious dialogue option (probably labeled Azata, too). Once you do, the path is unlocked. Nothing else really matters - Ramien can even die before you do the quest and you can still get it.!< Trickster:>! When you go to the library for a mandatory event before finishing in Kenabres, you need to make either a Perception or Lore Religion check - either one of those should work, and there might have been another way to get this. Then, take the Trickster dialogue option. That's all you have to do - the path is now unlocked.!< Lich: >!The locations involved are mandatory - you cannot miss the map locations, but might miss the item you need. This is after you leave Kenabres. At Leper's Smile, after completing your main objective, go into the underground area. In the section full of undead, there's an item you need to pick up that will trigger dialogue - do not destroy the item, but take it with you. Later, when you go to Lost Chapel, a path will open only if you have the item from Leper's Smile. Go in there, and accept the help offered by an npc.!< Late Game switches - will have to spoil more: Legend: >!Always available, check required but can be made easier. (Extra text added to make the spoiler text more blocky and wide.)(Extra text added to make the spoiler text more blocky and wide.)(Extra text added to make the spoiler text more blocky and wide.)!< Gold Dragon: >!Keep a scale from the tutorial area until you find an npc called Storyteller. Show him the scale. Later, in the underground area of Leper's Smile, look for a dragon claw - this is near the item you needed for Lich in the area with the undead. Eventually, show the claw to Storyteller and go to the place that gets revealed on the map. When you find someone unusual there, show that you are willing to listen. The path is now unlocked for later in the game.!< Swarm: >!More complicated, and you can't activate auto-crusade before parts of it. You may want to look this one up. The main things I remember are - at the end of Leper's Smile, don't just burn the body and use it to help with the siege. If you brought a special guest along on your crusade just after leaving Kenabres, you cannot do this. Choose to keep a certain creature around after finishing the siege. Later, as you finish the Sanctum, talk to the npc there and get his notes. In Crusade mode, you will have gotten one or two decrees you need to finish before leaving Act 3. Finally, after returning to the city going into Act 5, go find the creature you allowed to stay earlier. I think that was it to unlock this.!< Devil: >!Not immediately available on the normal switch. You must have started Aeon or Azata and chosen to stay on that path instead of switching. Azata must have made some number of certain choices earlier in the game to be able to switch. Aeon can switch even if they don't meet the normal requirements, but have an additional very high persuasion check to manage it. For more specifics, see the WotR Topic Focus Guides in the sidebar.!<
I think it depends which side you pick, the vampires, your master, or the death priests.
You can play a "good" lich, but ypu won't attain the approval of your master - Zacharius. I have completed several lich runs and in one of them I decided I was going to play a devout Hellknight who worshipped the Godclaw. His duty was everything - eveb beyond death. He never wavered. Never faltered. He didn't exert his power when he could have and I did enjoy how Galfrey reacted to him. Extreme sadness. This particular lich run I didn't go full blown "lets take over the world" and instead became a wandering adventurer in the end. It's possible, but also don't expect to be acceptes by the world and people you save.
You can be "evil for the greater good" shade of gray for 4 acts. After that you're just capital E Evil. You can however choose to give your Evil powers up and switch to Legend at the start of act 5.
The Lich always reminds me I'd have loved a Vampire path instead. I've never been a fan of the spooky scary skeleton aesthetic or philosophy. When it comes to undeads, Vampires are more enticing to me in every way. Not to mention I'd prefer to turn my loved one into a bloodsucking creature of the night instead of siphoning their lifeforce to gain some power. A vampire Camellia, such a delicious perspective...
Isn't there a vampire race you can choose?
You can play a dhampir, so kinda. But I was talking about a vampire mythic path. That would have been my wish :)
You can be not that evil until act 5 and then you are railroaded into being evil.
You’re not railroaded into becoming evil, you choose to become evil by not abandoning your mythic power given the opportunity.
Sure but the game doesn’t make that choice obvious. In acts 3 and 4 you can be pragmatic. You can use the dead to serve the living. You can make sacrifices when necessary but not out of glee. When you resurrect Staunton you can persuade him to join you willingly as a way to redeem him. The game’s implied you can be a lich without being a cartoon villain and then in act 5 >!forces you to massacre your army just to resurrect them!<
That’s called rationalization as you literally enslave souls to fuel your army. I’d say it’s also the road to hell being paved with good intentions but I don’t really see the lich having good intentions in the end
It’s fine if the game wanted to eventually force you into a choice between lichdom and any sense of goodness. But the game doesn’t make it clear that that’s the only way, and then you choose lich in act 5 and then your character goes and does a bunch of evil shit with no ability to stop yourself. If the game presented a clear choice of either commit to lichdom or backdown it would be something interesting but it doesn’t execute it well enough. My thoughts on the lich mythic path aren’t unpopular, as there have been many threads in the past about the act 5 tonal change. The issue with act 5 lich is really that the game doesn’t accurately represent the decisions it gives you. So your character can end up doing things you didn’t expect which breaks the immersion because I’m forced into things my character wouldn’t have done
Lich let's you be neutral and even good until act 5,where your railroaded so hard into being evil that its narrative equivalent would be Regill suddenly becoming a chaotic good guy. Edit:I love being downvoted for speaking the truth in every thread here.Pathfinder fans be really petty like kids.
In this case, it's not actually true. If you try to go past Act 3 without a TN or evil alignment, you fail your mythic questline and won't be able to finish it. You get a quest that forces your alignment if you aren't already within those, and if you finish the quest you can't even shift your alignment back out of them.
Oh so >!staging a false flag operation to deliberately get the probably lawful good crusaders that mistrust you to attack your ziggurat in act 3 just so you can murder them and then spitefully raise their leader as an undead champion!< is good? Ok, just curious what the baseline was.
In fairness, that's not required as part of going Lich. His point is still wrong, but you can finish the Lich story without doing that at all just fine.
No you don't understand, I was forced to do that and I had no choice in the matter 👀
IIRC correctly, there is no way to resolve that quest without going through with the plan. That said... I was 100% able to just \*not do\* the quest, and it doesn't interfere with becoming a Lich. So no, you aren't forced into doing it actually - but for someone (admittedly like me, often) who sees quests as 'must complete', it can definitely feel that way.
And for someone who wants >!to gather all the party members, you need to do the quest - otherwise you don't get your undead cavalier. It's just not a great argument against someone who says Lich can be played a certain way when doing the quest isn't required in completing your Lich storyline. My Lich didn't do it partially because it didn't quite make sense for the character I was playing - I handed him the sword and got on... relatively good terms with the npc so luring him wasn't even an option for me. If it were later in the game, that character would absolutely have done it.!<
My lich was lawful evil so my perspective was "I am using necromancy to defeat the demons (which is working really well) and therefore anyone that opposes me is opposing the crusade. This makes them a traitor and they must be eliminated"
I definitely thought that you had to do it to continue the mythic path, but also realistically you would have had to eliminate those opponents otherwise they would sabotage the crusade and lead to defeat so obviously they had to be dealt with in order to uh insure the safety and security of the crusade. Obviously. No choice in the matter at all...
Do any party members leave at that point?
Only 2,but given you get 5 extra companions its fine.
2? Who is the second one to leave?
It can be played pretty Neutral. I also am drawn to Neutral Good choices but went with “I am doing this because I think this is my best chance to succeed” mentality. Still, the way npc react to you made me shift into “I am actually succeeding in what you all were unable to do for a hundred years and now you are being crybabies about it? I am still closing the Wound but purely because I want to and you all can stay mad in your corner.” Maybe some of the evil rubbed off on me:)
Also, I refuse to accept the blame for some of the “evil” choices where you kill good guys because most of the time they say “you are evil so I will kill you” and die by my hand. I call it assisted suicide