Posted by SphereMaker(IMM) on March 27, 2000 at 17:53:34:
In Reply to: Re: Sainthood posted by An Old Arbiter on March 27, 2000 at 17:45:28:
> Why not? Why should evil have the only uber-class?
Perhaps I should clarify that "transformation into saints/angels stuff isn't going to happen" does not equal "evil will have the only uber-class". I don't even think that's remotely implied in my response. His suggestion, like every other "let's turn goodies into some archgoodie creature/class", has inevitably sounded remarkably like Lichmaking. This means... (you guessed it)... it ain't gonna happen.
That doesn't mean good classes need to be overlooked. That doesn't mean paladins can't be changed. That doesn't mean other good classes can't be developed. It only means exactly what I said.
> Yes, goodies shouldn't have a carbon-copy class of a Lich,
(...which his post came close to...)
> but Liches are ridiculously powerful, requiring huge groups of very experienced players to kill.
That's a qualifiable statement.
> Even then, they have a skill which requires them to regain lost constitution
It is possible for Liches to gain this ability, yes.
> that they can acquire and phylactries that can counter-balance most, if not all, of their vulnerabilities.
Which is why they (phylacteries) aren't handed out like candy. Either way, that has little to do with having saints/angels come from some transformation process that mimics lichdom.