Talk:Lich

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

References

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

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).

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

According to Webster's, lich (as in lych-gate) is pronounced to rhyme with witch. That's also how I've always heard it prnounced. Guest. 10:24, 28 May 2008

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

this section is getting rather large. liches are in hundred if not thousands of other fictional works.

perhaps an other page, a list page? or it should be removed altogether. Drag-5 16:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think besides Ancient Egypt the concept come back with Bram Stoker's Vampire Dracula. Dracula was undead by a curse, needed native soil which is like a phylactery for the soul, and took the shape of the mist which is like taking many shapes like that of a bat or wolf.87.203.126.205 85.75.233.219 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:49:14, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I believe that someone more knowledgeable should mention Democritus theory of Atoms,

which originally were not the atoms of chemistry but soul atoms

(i think he got that theory by observing the dead) And maybe we shouldn't speak about death but we should use the word disintegrate87.203.126.205

I dont see that theory being relevent to the article or to this tlk section.... -forcefieldmaker87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.190.88 (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi guys, just an anonymous LotR geek. Incidentally, Sauron was not a Maia, like Gandalf and Saruman, but rather (originally) an elf. He was famous for betraying his kind to join the service of the then present dark Valar (god) Melkor (or Morgoth). Anyhow, cut a *long* story short, Melkor was banished to the void, leaving Sauron as the prime force of evil (though still a mortal) in Middle earth. He used to be incredibly beautiful and charismatic, apparently due to this, he managed to salvage his reputation and make good face with most of the leaders of the world from his citadel (located near Mirkwood, IIRC). Cut another *long* story short, he betrayed the world again when he forged the one-ring, binding his soul to it and rendering him immortal. Henceforth, he was effectively a lich, in that he was indestructible (each time he got killed he would simply 'come back). After defeated by the lord of Numenor the first time, he was dragged back as a slave, only to become the kings advisor (I didn't write this stuff), and condem the island kingdom to being sunk by the Valar for depravity. He survived the sinking of Numenor, though was much uglier and weaker (as drowned corpses often are) and fled to Mordor to recuperate. This is the sauron we all know and saw in the flashbacks of the movie(that gondor used to fight). As you know, he hid his horrible appearance in an elaborate suit of armour, and was 'killed' in the battle of the last alliance of elves and men prior to helms deep (you saw it, the part where he exploded after having his finger cut off). Anyhow, seeing as the ring was not destroyed, he lived on, though now had no physical form, and instead manifested as an eyeball (whatever floats his boat). Finally he was destroyed by frodo when he threw the ring (or had it wrested from him) into the fires of mount doom where it was forged.

Now in terms of D&D, it had always seemed to me that (like most of the 1st ed data) the Lich was a simple plagiarism of Lord of the Rings. Though it never explicitly said in any of the appendices that Sauron was undead, you can assume the point that he forged the ring and stopped dying when killed relates to that. Plus we also the fact that Demi-Liches' phylacteries are treated as artifacts, in that they can only be destroyed in very limited difficult ways (Sauron actually being a demi-Lich, at least by the time of Aragorn). Sauron was the original Lich. In fact, the label was created for him, so you must forgive him if he doesn't perfectly meet the standards for this retrospective template.

The comments about Sauron are incorrect. He was never an elf, but he did appear to them as one in order to win their trust and create the One Ring. The destruction of the One Ring did not kill him, but rather left him in such a weakened state that he could no longer create a physical form.

Sauron was a Maia of Aule (the smith) which is why he knew how to make such powerful magical rings. He is not undead, he is simply immortal. The maia are divine beings, not unlike Christian angels. Anyway, "he ain't no lich" Queson 19:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sauron was living immortal and therefore fails to match the trait of liches being mortals who gain immortality in undeath. However, he is a major inspiration for the oher main (and possibly focal) trait of having a phylactery. Koschei is the only other source that matches exactly the condition of reincarnation upon death unless phylactery is destroyed. All other historical mythological creatures and fictional horror creatures are different in this aspect. Therefore even if Sauron is not a lich he is at least the second most influential factor as inspiration for liches! -Forcefieldmaker87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.190.88 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sauron is definitely a rebel Maia, not a "lich". The Nazgûl are arguably liches, having "phylactery" in their Nine Rings (held by Sauron) and using this dark art to extend their existence. But Tolkien used the word "wraiths" to describe the Nazgûl, and the word "wight" to describe the lich-like evil spirit haunting the Barrow-downs in LotR. Tolkien would certainly have known the word "lich" to mean "corpse", but never used it to mean an undead, afaik.

Despite a complainer, below, the use of "lich" as "undead sorceror" almost certainly begins with the release of the first Monster Manual by the late great Gary Gygax, in 1977. —Yamara ✉ 20:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hound of odd (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, Demi-Lich is to lich what Arch-angel is to Angel.

I agree. Demi Moore is not a lich.124.176.5.96 (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please stop with the dungeons and dragons

the word lich is not exclusive to dungeons and dragons. this article is about lich, not about d&d. there is an article about lich specific to d&d. this article should be focused on the word lich and all its uses throughout history. it should not be biased towards d&d. the use of the word lich in any media or other works can not be attributed to d&d without a proper citation. coincidences can and do exist. Drag-5 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

additional, please review the following. http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?lich http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lich http://dict.die.net/lich/ http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/LICH Drag-5 21:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter

Voldemort does not belong under Historical background. I feel this information (and examples in other important fiction) is better suitable in a section titled Fictional Works, Fantasy Works or In Fiction (the first two of which used to exist on the page by the looks of it). It is questionable whether Voldemort fits the description of a lich at all. I'll move the information on Voldemort to its own section in a few days unless someone objects. —121.209.186.16 (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazgûl are not Liches

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's even remotely correct. The Nazgûl were wraiths, beings of no substance at all, who could interact with the physical world, and wore clothing or armor as needed; whereas Liches are powerful spellcasting (in some cases) corpses/skeletons. The difference might seem slight, but there is a difference. Call me crazy if you will, but I think the inclusion of Nazgûl in the list of Liches is a mistake -- and while we're at it, why are wraiths in the list as well? The two are not the same at all. Also, I belive the term originates with Old English "lic" meaning corpse or body, but I may be mistaken.192.44.136.113 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morality and perversity

The description of a lich states that it is a "(...) who has used evil rituals to bind his intellect to his animated corpse and thereby achieve a perverse form of immortality."

Why is that perverse and immoral? There is no explanation of why that would be wrong. I would have done it, without much hesitation for example. Crakkpot (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]