Talk:Lich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Fictional Works Section Moved 2 Origins 3 References 4 Pronunciation 5 Lich in other fictional works 6 First appearance? 7 What is this article really about? 8 Removed Skeletor from Lich entry. 9 Factual inaccuracy concerning liches in Warhammer 10 Sauron is a lich? 11 Stupid Lich picture from Wesnoth 12 Demi-lich = demi (less), not demi (more)

[edit] Fictional Works Section Moved

I've moved the "Fictional Works" section to the bottom of the article because it is the least pertinent to an encyclopedic article on Lich. I'm not volunteering to do it right now, but the "Fantasy Works" section also needs to be cleaned up and probably pared down. The Fictional Works section should adhere to the general purpose and feel of an encyclopedia. Beatdown 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit impatient, so I took the liberty of cleaning up the Fantasy Works section. There is simply no need to post every obscure reference to lich that pops up in fictional works. Beatdown 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

While the term Lich is p --Rob W.

not an expert at all, but I was paging through an Anglo-Saxon dictionary earlier, and I believe the term lich may come from the uninflected word for 'corpse': līc

[edit] References

Is it Lieber's "Gods of Lankhmar" that are being referred to here? --L. 15:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed "comes from the Slavic licho" since there is no reference regarding this etymology. In any case, the modern English "lich" is derived from the Old English word. Given the evolution of English from Anglo-Saxon, it seems unlikely that this word "comes from" a Slavic word, though they could have both some common Indo-European root (or the similarity could be coincidental).

[edit] Pronunciation

How is Lich pronounced? --Neg 22:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's pronounced like "stitch" or "bitch." → JarlaxleArtemis 04:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've always hear it ponouced as 'Lish'. Ragzouken 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Artemis is right, "Ch" as in "Choo-Choo" Beatdown 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I've always heard it pronounced the same as the word "like." Check the dictionary link on the page, don't the earlier versions of the word appear to have a long 'i' and a hard 'k'? Milgex 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lich in other fictional works

On the subject of Voldermort, I rewrote that passage. It is unfair to claim that Voldemort isn't a lich simply because he hasn't been "referred to as such." Rowling has made a career out of taking things out of existing mythology and giving them different names. For example, in Half-Blood Prince, she adds monsters called "inferi," which are described as mindless corpses that some evil wizard has animated to do their bidding. Obviously, that's what the rest of the world calls a "zombie;" just because Rowlings makes up names doesn't change that fact. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... --L. 17:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Psyduck looks like a duck and... well, you get my point. Most Pokémons look like animals. That doesn't mean we have any right to claim they are real animals. Inspired, perhaps. But not the same thing. That should be clear also on the lich article. --Kaonashi 18:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First appearance?

The lich was apparently in a book from 1926, although it appears to be interchangable with a mummy. This is the quote i've seen(quoted in NetHack):

But on its heels ere the sunset faded, there came a second

apparition, striding with incredible strides and halting when

it loomed almost upon me in the red twilight-the monstrous mummy

of some ancient king still crowned with untarnished gold but

turning to my gaze a visage that more than time or the worm had

wasted. Broken swathings flapped about the skeleton legs, and

above the crown that was set with sapphires and orange rubies, a

black something swayed and nodded horribly; but, for an instant,

I did not dream what it was. Then, in its middle, two oblique

and scarlet eyes opened and glowed like hellish coals, and two

ophidian fangs glittered in an ape-like mouth. A squat, furless,

shapeless head on a neck of disproportionate extent leaned

unspeakably down and whispered in the mummy's ear. Then, with

one stride, the titanic lich took half the distance between us,

and from out the folds of the tattered sere-cloth a gaunt arm

arose, and fleshless, taloned fingers laden with glowering gems,

reached out and fumbled for my throat . . .

The Abominations of Yondo, Clark Ashton Smith, 1926

--JeffBobFrank 03:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is it too large a stretch of the imagination to think that, given how Dungeons & Dragons borrows so many elements from the Lord of the Rings, the lichs in D&D might actually be derived from the ringwraiths? Just a thought. Wyborn 21:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus - I never thought of that! --L. 4 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Made a small change - didn't think it appropriate that the article should say that other sources derived the lich concept from Dungeons and Dragons, given how old the idea is. --Wyborn 08:59, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Clark Ashton Smith seems to use the word "lich" simply to refer to a corpse; in "Empire of the Necromancers," he makes a distinction between two types of animated corpses: skeletons and liches. I take his use to mean that if there is still flesh on the bones, it is a lich. This is the standard, dictionary-definition of lich-- an archaic term for a corpse-- but used to describe something horrifying, that is, a walking corpse.

D&D borrowed "wraith" from the Ringwraiths, not "lich". D&D uses a general term-- lich, meaning corpse-- for something specific-- the animated corpse of an undead wizard. This is typical of D&D, and games in general, to use a general term (wizard, wight, wraith, warlock, just for the W's) to mean something specific; and in popularizing an obscure general term, many people either forget or remain unaware that there is a more general meaning.

So, when reading Clark Ashton Smith, for instance, don't expect every lich he refers to to be a powerful magician with his disembodied soul encased in a hidden phylactery. He may have written about such a creature (like maybe Malygris?) but it is D&D that "standardized" these characters as "liches," not Smith. Silarius 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "Lich" is also used in H.P. Lovecraft's short story "The Thing on the Doorstep" (1933), to refer to a corpse formerly, and possibly still, inhabited by the soul of an evil wizard named Ephraim Waite, who attempted to gain immortality by shifting his soul from one body to another. It's not clear whether he is using the term merely as an archaic reference to a corpse, or specifically to refer to a reanimated corpse, but a reanimated corpse does feature in the story, so it is possible. However, Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith and Robert E Howard (see below) were all part of "The Lovecraft Circle", along with many other like-minded writers, and frequently exchanged ideas with one another, so the question of who first used the term, and developed into its modern context may be unanswerable. Denorios 22:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this article really about?

As far as I can see, this is an article about Dungeons & Dragons, not about Liches. Look I played my AD&D when I was young, but I really think this article is way too much about AD&D then someone stuck in some historical context as an afterthought. I think I can make this a better article, more useful to people who have never even heard of Dungeons & Dragons. I am going to work on clarifying and reorganizing this article tonight. GestaltG 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hang on there. The reason this article is about Dungeons & Dragons is because D&D invented the Lich. The "Historical background" section deals with things that are not liches, but merely similar to them and possible inspirations for the idea. If you know of some generic accepted term for "lich-like undead wizards" that the rest of that historical background information could be grouped under then splitting some of it off into a new article on that subject might be good, but reducing the D&D content of this article is definitely not the way to go. Bryan 00:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, so assuming for a moment that Dungeons & Dragons "invented" the lich. The editorial point I am trying to make here is why not just put in a sentence or paragraph saying that Dungeons & Dragons invented the modern lich (I notice now that it has been clarified) rather than having half the article be about all of the different Dungeons & Dragons games, references, and related computer games? A simple sentence would have sufficed to make that point, rather than several paragraphs. GestaltG 03:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice that you have now deleted the entire reference to Robert E. Howard's Sand Lich? Robert E. Howard died in 1936. I highly doubt that Dungeons & Dragons invented the Lich if it appears in a story by Robert E. Howard. I think you are trying way too hard to "rewrite" history so that Dungeons & Dragons somehow invented the Lich. At the very least, I would consider J.R.R. Tolkein's ringwraiths a kind of Lich. Why did you remove the Robert E. Howard reference? Next thing we know, you are going to try to tell us that Dungeons & Dragons invented sword and sorcery? GestaltG 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe you have me mistaken for somebody else. The last time I made a substantial change to this article (other than fiddling with the capitalization and pluralization of headers) was a little over a year ago, when I added non-D&D-related material. Here's the diff: [1]. Prior to that my only other contributions were to add a category and to add a paragraph mentioning demiliches [2]. As for calling ringwraiths "a kind of lich", that strikes me as being revisionist. Ringwraiths get their own article, which as it happens doesn't mention "Liches" at all. Bryan 02:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Conan reference was moved up to the list of liches in fantasy fiction. "Conan and the Sorcerer" is a pastiche, not an original Robert E Howard story, and was published in 1978, after D&D debuted its own liches. -Sean Curtin 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with using the word "pastiche" and that is part of my confusion here. According to the dictionary, a "pastiche" is either 1) a work that imitates the style of a previous work or 2) a composition made up of selections from different works. Clearly by pastiche you meant the former; it may well be that Conan and the Sorcerer is an "imitative" pastiche published in 1978. My confusion comes from Conan the Conquerer, which is an original Robert E. Howard work, but is a novel pieced together from various original Howard writings. This work could also be called a "pastiche" of the second sort. Knowing a bit about how Robert E. Howard's works have been published, I thought the 1978 Conan and the Sorcerer (which I have never read) might also be a cobbled collection of Howard writings. At the least, this suggests that you should clarify the reference in the article to the 1978 work. GestaltG 02:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Skeletor from Lich entry.

Ignoring the fact that Skeletor's physique is muscular and non-rotting and the fact that he is actually a living, breathing (fictional) person. His origin story (according to the original books sold with the action figures) is that he came from a planet of blue-skinned, skull-faced living people.

[edit] Factual inaccuracy concerning liches in Warhammer

Whoever wrote the article seems to be under the impression that the term 'necromancer' is applied to all magic-users specialising in the undead, and that the term 'lich' is reserved for the most powerful; as far as I know (unless there are definite GW sources to disprove this), necromancers are living undead-specialist wizards whereas liches are their actual undead counterparts- the before and after pictures, to look at it another way. I'll rewrite the passage if wanted, if noone has any objecion? Naturally if there's new GW source material that elaborates on this stuff then go with that, as I'm not totally up to date on new Warhammer stuff. 172.188.214.14 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sauron is a lich?

According to what I understand about J.R.R Tolkien's writings, Sauron was actually a Maia, an immortal being incapable of dying in the regular sense of the word. Therefore, he would not be considered a lich or even undead at all. Note that when he died, his spirit was banished, as was Saruman's, who was also a maia. I propose taking his name off the list Sylverdin 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Sauron is not undead. SpectrumDT 16:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I will remove Sauron from the list. Simply he is not a lich. 62.1.174.197 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Even though Sauron is not undead, the One Ring does have similarities to a phylactery, in that his life is bound to it, similar to how a lich's soul is bound to its phylactery. Still, this is somewhat of a stretch, and is likely coincedental. 66.24.235.78 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid Lich picture from Wesnoth

i deleted that lich picture to make a point. it is not vandalizm. i knew someone would restore the picture right away. my point is in all the world can you not find a better picture of a lich than that stupid cartoon that is posted right now? a person coming here who does not have any knowledge of liches and how powerful and terrifying they are would look at that stupid cartoon lich and just laugh. it is a ridiculous picture and it is childish when you consider how mean and smart and powerful liches are. if i find a good picture can it be posted? can i draw a picture and post it so we can have a real picture of a lich and not some silly stupid nerd stuff like right now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hound of odd (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 November 2006.

If you can find a better picture to illustrate the article with it would be most welcome, and if you draw it yourself even moreso since you can post it under a free licence. Note that the Wesnoth image is under the GPL licence, though, which gives it an advantage over many better-looking but restrictively-licenced (or unlicenced) images out there. By the way, if you're going to make an edit that you know is going to be reverted, you probably shouldn't make the edit in the first place. We've got a guideline on this topic: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thanks. Bryan 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps either of these images may be more appropriate?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/DieVecnaDieCover.jpg)

(http://www.nascr.net/~jcburd/lich.jpg)

66.24.235.78 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Those images are copyrighted though. I'm not too happy with the Lich myself (would prefer one with a phylactery, since that is a feature discussed in the article). Perhaps somebody with sufficient skill could draw one? Borisblue 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demi-lich = demi (less), not demi (more)

In AD&D, a demi-lich is not "half Lich and half god". Acererak from Gary Gygax' Tomb of Horrors represents the first use of the term and should be regarded as the very definition of a "demi-lich". Acererak was actually far LESS powerful than a lich, having once been one himself. Per Gygax: "Eventually even the undead life-force of Acererak began to wane..." (ToH, page 10). Like a demigod, a demi-lich is a lesser version of the real thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asat (talk • contribs) 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps the etymology of the name has varied over the years, but the current standard references for version 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons are quite clear that a demilich is more powerful than a lich and I believe it has always been that way. See the SRD's entries for the lich template (found in the basic "monsters" listing) and the demilich template (found in the "epic monsters" listing) - the demilich template is applied to a lich and adds 6 to the challenge rating. Bryan Derksen 04:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Bryan. I just added an entry within this article for NetHack in which a demilich is more powerful than a lich. Perhaps this isn't how demilich was originally defined, but it certainly seems more widely used to mean more powerful, not less. ahpla 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)